University of Ulster audit of overseas provision
1 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between the University of Ulster (the University) and Hong Kong College of Technology (HKCT).
Introduction
2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a United Kingdom (UK) organisation that seeks to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and funders of higher education. It does this mainly through a peer review process of audits and reviews. These are conducted by teams of auditors and reviewers comprising academic staff from higher or further education institutions, but with some members drawn, where appropriate, from industry and the professions. The most recent institutional audit report on the University was published by QAA in September 2005. A report on the University's collaborative provision was published in May 2007.
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 2007, QAA audited selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Hong Kong. The purpose of the 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 Hong Kong.
The audit process for collaborative link
4 In March 2006, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in Hong Kong. On the basis of the information returned on the nature and scale of the links, QAA selected for audit visits six UK institutions with links in Hong Kong. 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), in particular, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), published by QAA in 2004.
5 In spring 2007, audit visits were made to each of the selected UK institutions to discuss its arrangements in the light of its commentary. In May 2007, an audit team visited the partner institutions in Hong Kong 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 Hong Kong, discussions were conducted with key members of staff and with students. The full audit team conducting audits of institutions with collaborative links in Hong Kong comprised Dr D Furneaux, Professor M Hunt, Professor K Hurst, Mrs S Middleton, Dr S Taylor (auditors), and Mr G Clark (audit secretary). The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr I Ainsworth, Head of Degree Awarding Powers and University Title, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Hong Kong for the willing cooperation they provided to the team.
The context of collaborative provision with partners in Hong Kong
6 Higher education in Hong Kong is provided by public and private institutions and is organised according to four levels of award: associate degrees and higher diplomas; bachelor's degrees; master's degrees; and doctorates. The University Grants Committee (UGC) is responsible for funding eight universities which have their own degree awarding powers and offer programmes at all levels. It is also responsible for funding a teacher education provider whose degrees are validated by the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA), (now the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation and Vocational Qualifications). In 2006, university status was granted to the first private university in Hong Kong.
7 There are also approximately 20 private providers offering associate degrees and higher diplomas. Private providers must have their programmes accredited by an external body, such as the HKCAA. Graduates of higher diplomas and associate degrees may be eligible to enter bachelor's degree courses at an advanced stage, depending on the number of credits they have accumulated.
8 Higher education provision by overseas institutions in Hong Kong (hereafter referred to as 'non-local provision') has experienced considerable growth over the last 15 years to meet local demand for degree-level top-up courses and other types of non-local provision. The Education Bureau (the Education and Manpower Bureau at the time of the audit) is responsible for education, more generally, in Hong Kong and maintains a register of 'Non-local Higher and Professional Education Programmes', listing all programmes provided in whole, or in part, by non-local providers within Hong Kong.
9 The framework for the quality assurance of non-local provision in Hong Kong was established by the 1997 Non-local Higher and Professional Education (Regulation) Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the Ordinance). The 1997 Ordinance requires all courses leading to the award of a non-local higher education qualification by a non-local institution to be registered with the Registrar of Non-local Higher and Professional Education Courses. The HKCAA advises the Registrar on the eligibility of non-local courses which have applied for registration. Registration is an assurance that the providing institution is a recognised body in its home jurisdiction; that the programme is of the same standard as the equivalent programme offered in the provider's home country, and is recognised as such by the relevant accreditation authorities and academic community. The registration requirement does not apply to courses conducted in collaboration with local higher education institutions; wholly distance-learning courses (those without the institutions or their agents being physically present in Hong Kong); and courses conducted solely by local registered schools or higher education institutions. Courses which fulfil one or more of these criteria may apply to be exempted from registration. Exempted courses are not subject to assessment by the HKCAA.
The background to the collaborative link
General background to the link
10 The University's partnership with HKCT began in 1997 when the University approved HKCT to offer a two-year part-time top-up course in computing. This enabled students who had previously completed a Higher Diploma in a computing subject to study for a BSc Honours in Computing Science. The University subsequently approved and validated three other programmes but only one of these, the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design which also operated as a two year part-time top-up, recruited students. HKCT was granted Associate College status by the University in December 2003. The University defines the collaborative programmes as validated provision. The language of study and assessment is English. At the time of the audit, two students, both resitting modules on a 'without attendance' basis, were enrolled on the BSc Honours in Computing Science, which had not recruited any new students since 2004. The BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design had a second year cohort of 24 students. The partners did not intend to recruit new students to any University programmes at HKCT and the formal relationship, including the Associated College designation, was expected to expire at the end of the 2006-07 academic year.
11 HKCT, formerly known as Mongkok Workers' Night School, was founded in 1957 as a non-profit making education institution to advance the education opportunities for in-service youth. In 1987, the School was officially renamed the Hong Kong College of Technology. Since 1996 it has collaborated with overseas education institutions to provide courses leading to both undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications. In 2002, HKCT set up a separate unit, HKCT International, to manage its overseas collaborative links. The audit team noted, from documentation relating to the partnership, that references were made to both HKCT and HKCT International being the University's partner. However, the team understood that HKCT is formally the partner institution, since HKCT International is a separate subsidiary company with no staff.
12 The University's Commentary stated that the courses delivered at HKCT are broadly equivalent to existing University programmes with some variation from the parent programme permitted to take account of local requirements. The University stated that this system was representative of the main type of overseas collaborative link operated by the University at the time of the audit (although it had identified articulation arrangements as its preferred model of collaboration in future).
The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision
13 The Commentary stated that the University's international partnerships are linked to its regional mission in Northern Ireland in the sense that they serve to promote Northern Ireland internationally and, in some cases, bring greater diversity to the student body. However, it acknowledged that the HKCT partnership, which pre-dates the current version of the University's International Strategy, does not contribute to the latter ambition.
14 The University's Collaborative Provision Strategy distinguishes between local and overseas collaborative activity and sets out a number of principles which the University expects to underpin future collaborative activity. These include alignment with section 2 of the Code of practice; future collaborative provision to be planned in accordance with the University's academic planning process; new proposals should complement, rather than compete with, existing University provision; and new course developments and partnership arrangements should be robust and secure. The Collaborative Provision Strategy recognises that while some of its existing collaborative provision may not align with all of these principles, the University is committed to ensuring that they should be applied when courses are revalidated.
15 The University's Guide to Collaboration in the Provision of Programmes of Study (the Guide) sets out the University's principles of standards assurance and quality management relating to collaborative provision. In broad terms, the University expects its collaborative partners to operate their own quality assurance processes, while the University maintains its quality assurance processes to assure itself of standards. The Guide includes a list of supplementary processes which apply to overseas collaboration. These include the appointment of a Faculty Head of Collaborative Courses (FHCC), who engages in a range of quality assurance activities related to the overseas links including a monitoring visit after the second student intake for all new partners. The link with HKCT pre-dates the arrangements described in the Guide, but they were identified as a feature of good practice in the recent QAA collaborative provision audit report.
16 The quality assurance of collaborative provision is largely managed through the University's committee structure. However, two central committees have a specific role in overseeing collaborative links. These are the FHCC Forum, which is a subcommittee of the Teaching and Learning Committee; and a specially constituted subgroup of the latter Committee with senior institutional membership, appointed annually to review all annual course review documentation for partner institutions. The main focus for the development, monitoring and enhancement of collaborative arrangements within the University structure is the FHCC, whose duties cover all areas that contribute to the maintenance of standards and the enhancement of quality. FHCCs provide support in relation to admission and enrolment arrangements, course development, and in the ongoing maintenance of collaborative provision, including its associated assessment processes. They also support the Course Director at the partner institution in the preparation of the partner's annual course review.
17 In addition to the FHCC, a designated subject expert may be asked to provide additional advice or support to partner institution course teams. For this particular link, however, the FHCC is also the subject specialist and thus performs both roles. The audit team considered that this presented a risk to the management of standards and quality should the postholder leave the University. The team concluded, therefore, that the University might wish to review the combination of these two roles and the support provided for the postholder at institutional level.
18 The audit team noted that, although the University-based BSc Honours in Computing Science had been accredited by the British Computer Society, similar accreditation for the provision delivered in Hong Kong had not been sought. The team understood that the University had no policy for assisting HKCT to achieve accreditation. No mention of the Society is made within publicity materials provided to students.
19 HKCT staff told the audit team that they valued the partnership, which was one of the first they had established with an overseas partner. Although the formal partnership was coming to an end, both partners told the team that the link may continue through other projects in the future.
Public information, publicity and promotional activity
20 The Commentary contained a formal listing of overseas partnership links and the audit team noted that the FHCC is required to approve publicity material produced by HKCT for the validated programmes it offers, before publication. The team also noted that the FHCC can request additional checks (for example, in relation to facts about the University) through the University's Public Affairs Department. The team was told that proactive checking had also taken place, leading to some translation related issues being identified and remedied by the University. The team was told that the University approved all publicity material produced by HKCT at the start of the partnership. However, subsequent approval was not required as there had been no substantive change to the partnership, or the range of courses on offer.
Formal arrangements for establishing the link
Selecting and approving the partner institution
21 The link with HKCT began before the University had a formal partner approval process. However, the Commentary stated that the University, '...did thoroughly investigate HKCT when the link was first established...', although it did not give any further details about what this investigation entailed. In 2002-03, in response to a previous QAA report on this link and Section 2 of the Code of practice, the University amended its approval process for collaborative provision and introduced separate procedures for the approval of partner institutions and academic programmes. These procedures are set out in the 'Protocol for the Approval of New Partner Institutions'. The recent QAA collaborative provision audit reviewed these arrangements in some detail and concluded that, '...the procedure for approval was thorough and included an appropriate risk-based assessment of the partner institution'.
22 The University requires formal re-recognition of partner institutions every five years. Successful re-recognition leads to a new memorandum of recognition for institutional level agreements. The documents provided by the University for this audit were a Memorandum of Association dated 1 December 2003 and a Recognition Agreement made on 28 June 2003. These would normally be due for review in 2008. However, given the impending expiry of the partnership, in December 2006, the University and HKCT agreed that the University would not undertake the review. Any future requests for collaboration from HKCT would be treated as a new partner request, invoking the University's procedures for the approval of new partners. The audit team noted that senior staff from the University had visited Hong Kong in December 2006, after which the University had issued a termination letter. HKCT had responded by agreeing to make adequate termination arrangements for the 24 students on the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design, and the two BSc Honours in Computing Science students, such that they could complete their studies. Notwithstanding the termination letter, the parties involved were reluctant to describe this outcome as a formal termination of the Agreement between the University and HKCT.
Programme approval
23 HKCT staff told the audit team that the link with the University was initially driven by strong market demand. However, student enrolments had declined because of an increase in the number of similar programmes available locally.
24 The Commentary stated that the BSc Honours in Computing Science and the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design, whilst considered validated provision, are very similar in structure and content to identically named programmes offered within the University. It also stated that a revised version of the former award was approved in February 2001, for the 2001 intake onwards, to ensure continued alignment with the parent course. Apart from arrangements for external examining, the audit team was unable to identify any direct ongoing comparisons of student performance between the UK-based and Hong Kong-based programmes.
25 The University employs a two-stage course approval process for collaborative provision. Initially a course approval form, completed by the partner, is reviewed by the FHCC who reports on it to the faculty committee responsible for collaboration. The Faculty's assessment and a Business Plan are then submitted to the Academic Planning Sub-Committee (APSC). APSC then recommends to the Academic Development and Student Services Committee (ADSSC) whether or not to proceed to the planning stage, and Senate is advised of the outcome. If initial approval is given, the Academic Office arranges an evaluation and recognition visit by a panel. The Course Approval Sub-Committee considers the panel's report.
26 Since the original BSc Honours in Computing Science was approved, subsequent approval events have been organised in accordance with the University's standard procedures in place at the time. All have involved internal University members and external subject experts. The collaborative provision audit concluded that the University's current arrangements for approval of courses were robust. With regard to the HKCT provision, the audit team noted that, of the six programmes originally proposed, four had been withdrawn at various stages of the validation and approval process and therefore did not recruit students.
27 The University's makes use of programme specifications in defining content and standards for internal quality assurance purposes. While it is the University's policy to publish programme specifications for its own courses on its website, the University recognises that it does not have the power to compel partner institutions to adopt the same practice and publish programme specifications on their websites. However, programme specifications are included in course handbooks and the University requires partner institutions to use its template for programme specifications, which must be included in approval and revalidation documentation.
28 The Guide describes how to make changes to the structure, content, or regulations of courses delivered in partner institutions. Such changes are generally dealt with by the relevant faculty committee. Changes to title, location or intake size are considered by the Course Approval Sub-Committee, whilst changes to regulations or principles are considered by the Teaching and Learning Committee. For the two courses that have recruited students, only two revisions have been made since 2003. The first, approved at faculty level, was to the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design. In September 2005, HKCT changed the structure of year one of the top-up programme from three semesters to two, longer, semesters. The Commentary reported that this did not present an excessive workload and that the University does not require partner institutions to follow its semester structure exactly. The second affected the BSc Honours in Computing Science. Following discussions between the Faculty and HKCT, a proposal to introduce the full programme was submitted to the Course Approval Sub-Committee in February 2004. The proposal was endorsed in view of the Faculty's positive assessment, HKCT's experience of delivering the final component, and the equivalent Level 1/2 content through the Higher Diploma. However, there has been no intake to the programme since 2004.
29 The audit team formed the view that the University's programme approval procedures were generally thorough. However, it also noted that, of the six programmes originally proposed, four had been withdrawn and therefore did not recruit students. This may reflect a paucity of market intelligence. The team would therefore encourage the University to review its approach to identifying likely demand for collaborative provision as it considers any future overseas collaboration.
Written agreements
30 The Agreements, which were both dated 2003, included a Memorandum of Association which formally recognised HKCT as an Associate College of the University, and a Recognition Agreement relating to the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design. The team noted that neither document specifies the residual obligations of both parties to students on termination of the Agreement, including the obligations of the awarding institution to enable students to complete their studies leading to the award; nor the role of external examiners in ensuring that the awarding body can fulfil its responsibilities for the academic standards of its awards. Since these agreements were made, the University has amended its standard Memoranda of Agreement and Recognition Agreement such that partner institutions are obliged to continue delivery to existing students in the event of course closure.
Quality management of the link
Management of the link
31 The University expects a Course Committee to be established, and a Course Director and module coordinators to be appointed, within the partner's organisation. The key management roles are performed by the FHCC at the University and the Course Director at HKCT, who is responsible for ensuring regular liaison with the FHCC. The FHCC reports to the Dean of Faculty; the Course Director reports to the Head of Department at HKCT.
32 The University's support for collaboration is maintained by detailed guidance notes, seminars and workshops, and close liaison with FHCCs. Liaison between HKCT staff, and University staff teaching the same modules in the UK, seems to be limited, with any contact normally being arranged through the FHCC. The audit team was told that academic and administrative liaison between HKCT and the University was effective and that additional support was provided by the University's local Hong Kong office.
33 The Recognition Agreement states that HKCT is responsible for the enrolment (and satisfactory tuition) of the students, and partners are required to provide the University with enrolment information within three weeks of the start of the academic year. The details are recorded on the University's student record system which creates individual registration numbers for students. HKCT staff confirmed that admissions documentation was forwarded to the University's FHCC for approval. Students told the audit team that they had chosen the University's courses for several reasons. These included the University's reputation; their desire to study for a UK degree; the programme content, which they perceived as relevant to their employment; improved job prospects; and the conversion from the Higher Diploma. Graduates whom the team met confirmed that the courses had enhanced their employability.
34 The University has clear procedures for the management of progression and achievement information. The University Examinations Office issues guidance to partner institutions on assessment procedures and the operation of boards of examiners including guidance for completing course results sheets. Results are sent to the University's Examinations Office together with the decisions on progress. The Examinations Office then updates the student database. The collaborative provision audit report confirmed that the University makes effective use of management information in monitoring student performance. HKCT staff confirmed that the University provided feedback on the annual monitoring report and asked HKCT to consider specific issues arising from the reports where appropriate. However, there was no discussion on the comparative performance of University and HKCT students.
35 The University expects partner institutions to be self-sufficient in the provision of learning support resources, confining itself to the monitoring of their fitness for purpose. This monitoring is the responsibility of the FHCC. Similar arrangements pertain for academic guidance and personal support for students. During the visit to HKCT, the audit team viewed the physical resources available to students, including general teaching rooms (with computer access) and the library provision. The team found that the facilities were generally limited. In particular, it noted that the library was not well stocked with relevant text books and the journals available were of limited value to the Interactive Multimedia Design students. In any future overseas collaboration, the team would suggest that the University ensure, through its approval and validation and ongoing monitoring processes, that learning resources are adequate for degree-level study.
36 The Commentary indicated that, in accordance with University policy, '...each course at HKCT has a staff/student consultative committee which normally meets once per semester'. Issues raised at this committee are considered at course committee meetings and discussion outcomes are communicated to students 'through announcements in lectures'. The Commentary also stated that HKCT invites students to participate in course committee meetings but that, given the part-time nature of the provision, student representatives did not attend. HKCT staff confirmed that, in their view, student representation was effectively managed and did elicit responses to issues raised by students. Students whom the audit team met confirmed that their feedback is heard and that any subsequent changes to the courses are communicated by staff. Student representatives also confirmed that although they were able to pass comments to their peers, this was not always possible because of the part-time mode of the course. In future overseas collaborations, the team would encourage the University to consider ways of promoting student representation among part-time students.
Arrangements for monitoring and review
37 In November each year, course committees are required to submit a self-evaluation form to the University relating to the previous year's cohort. The self-evaluation form includes comment on student enrolments, profile and performance; feedback from students; quality assurance issues; learning resources; course developments and good practice. Copies of external examiner and FHCC reports, responses to these, and minutes of course committee and Staff/Student Consultative Committee meetings, should all be appended. Self-evaluation forms are collated by the partner institution, signed off by senior management, and forwarded to the University. The University requires senior management at partner institutions to review the total submission for all courses before submitting the forms to the University.
38 No explicit mention was made of the University support provided for partners in relation to annual monitoring. However, the FHCC's terms of reference include a general requirement to provide guidance and support to the course team. HKCT staff confirmed that the University provided general feedback on the annual monitoring report. However, there was no discussion on the comparative performance of University and HKCT students. HKCT staff confirmed that the University had helped HKCT to develop quality assurance processes more generally.
Periodic review (revalidation)
39 The Guide does not list a process for periodic review; however, there is a revalidation process on a five-year cycle. Provision at HKCT was originally scheduled for revalidation in 2006-07, but the University's Faculty of Engineering responsible for this provision, proposed a postponement until 2007-08, which was approved. Subsequently, course withdrawal forms were submitted in October 2006, and all students were due to complete by July 2007. Consequently the revalidation event will not now take place.
Staffing and staff development
40 Partner institutions are responsible for staff appointments but, at initial approval, curricula vitae (CVs) for all staff involved in the delivery of the programme are included in the course document, and the same data are provided for formal revalidation. In between these events, the FHCC reviews the CVs of any new staff to ensure that they are competent to teach.
41 The audit team noted that, at the original validation, all proposed teaching staff were considered by the FHCC. Subsequently, all CVs for new full and part-time staff have been sent to the University for approval. The approval process, on all occasions, was undertaken by the FHCC.
42 HKCT staff confirmed that communications with the University were good. In particular, they appreciated the regular and helpful feedback provided by the FHCC via email, telephone and the annual visit. The audit team considered that there was a risk associated with potentially placing too much reliance on the FHCC and was told that, in the event of a problem with a particular FHCC, work would be delegated to the other FHCC in the Faculty. Nonetheless, in any future overseas collaborations, the audit team formed the view that the University should review the possible over-reliance on one postholder and the support provided at institutional level for the role.
43 The Commentary stated that the University organises a number of staff development events for collaborative partners. All overseas partners are invited to these events although attendance is limited for practical reasons. Copies of the presentations from staff development events are made available to overseas partners on the University's Quality Management and Audit Unit website. The audit team noted an example of HKCT staff attendance at a University event, and another example of staff development being provided on the University's annual course review process during a staff visit to HKCT. HKCT staff confirmed that a number of their colleagues had been to the University to take part in staff development activities, which they had found helpful. In addition, staff told the team that they were regularly updated by University staff on any changes within the University. The team noted that HKCT staff had been involved in discussions about, and had contributed to, the Commentary produced by the University.
44 The audit team concluded that staffing and staff development arrangements have been effective in ensuring that HKCT staff understand the basic requirements of the University's quality assurance policies and procedures.
Student admissions
45 Applications are made to HKCT, which checks basic entry qualifications, holds interviews and checks applicants' proficiency in English. Applicants to the BSc Honours in Computing Science and the BSc Honours in Interactive Multimedia Design should hold a HKCT Higher Diploma in computing or design respectively. Where this is not the case (for example, where an applicant holds a Higher Diploma in a different subject), HKCT seeks guidance from the FHCC. A formal paper, summarising all the applications, is submitted to the FHCC for final approval, on completion of the interview process.
46 The Policy Statement in the Guide confirmed that English is expected to be the language of instruction and assessment. As the courses are taught and assessed in English, the University's English language standard for admission of non-native speakers is used. This is International English Language Testing Service (IELTS) 6.0 or equivalent. The audit team noted that, in practice, the Higher Diploma was accepted as meeting the University's English language requirements because it is taught in English. However, HKCT also operated its own English language test as an additional safeguard. In future overseas collaborations, the team would encourage the University to monitor the extent to which its English language requirements are applied.
47 The Recognition Agreement states that, '...the College shall be responsible for the enrolment (and satisfactory tuition) of the students'. The University appears to have little involvement in the processes of application and admission, other than to set the admission requirements at the outset. The audit team heard that it was the FHCC's job to check that admissions functioned properly. HKCT staff confirmed that the entire admissions process was administered by HKCT; however, the outcomes required University ratification.
48 The applications and admissions process is wholly administered by HKCT but the University exercises final oversight of the process. In future overseas collaborations, the audit team would encourage the University to take a more proactive role in the application and admissions process.
Assurance of academic standards
Assessment of students
49 The audit team noted that the award regulations, which follow the templates provided by the University and therefore meet the University's requirements, are identical to those for the equivalent home course. Boards of examiners are held at HKCT and are chaired by a senior member of HKCT staff who must have undertaken formal training for the role. The University is represented by the External Examiner and either the FHCC, or an experienced member of the Faculty staff. Boards of examiners and progress review arrangements are the same as those applied by the University.
50 The Commentary indicated that HKCT staff are responsible for the production of all assessment materials. However, in the event of the introduction of a new module or the appointment of a new member of staff, the University provides examples of previous assessments from similar modules offered at the University. Draft examination papers, and their associated marking schemes, are reviewed by a University member of staff and any modifications are implemented before being forwarded to the External Examiner for comment and approval. All changes are included in the final version of the paper. The Commentary stated that external examiners agree the process for prior approval of coursework and that, typically, 'coursework briefs are only reviewed after the students have submitted work. The Faculty is satisfied that this is appropriate to the level of risk'. HKCT staff told the audit team that the University retains oversight of all assessment activities. The team noted that HKCT staff are responsible for the approval of project proposals initially, with the FHCC and relevant external examiner(s) approving project proposals subsequently. In addition, external examiners moderate the assessment of all projects.
51 The Commentary indicated that examination papers are held in a secure location within HKCT and that, typically, examinations are held in a large hall within the partner institution in a manner similar to that at universities in the UK. University staff told the audit team that the status of HKCT meant that it was safe to assume HKCT's competence in this area and that no problems had been reported, although instances of plagiarism and copying had occurred. The team was unable to identify any formal University overview of the conduct of examinations at HKCT. Examination scripts are marked in line with an agreed marking scheme and a sample of marking is then moderated. Examination scripts are made available to the FHCC and external examiner before the Board of Examiners meeting at which award decisions are made. The team was told that University guidelines are followed and that both coursework and examination scripts are sampled.
52 HKCT staff stated that student feedback is given on all student assessments. Students confirmed that detailed assessment feedback is provided within two weeks of submission. They were unaware of any formal involvement by University staff. HKCT staff confirmed that formal group assessment of a course assessment is not operated at HKCT.
53 The audit team considered that assessment arrangements at HKCT are consistent with those of the University. The team would, however, encourage the University, in any future collaborative arrangements, to strengthen its formal oversight of course assessment processes, to include project proposal approval and coursework assessment.
External examining
54 The Commentary stated that, 'External Examiners are appointed by the University using the same procedures as are used for internal provision'. In making a nomination to Senate, the Faculty of Engineering is mindful that the programmes, whilst considered validated provision, are very similar in structure and content to identically named programmes offered within the University. Hence, where possible, the same external examiner is used for both programmes to facilitate comparisons. This is currently the case for the Interactive Multimedia Design provision; Computing Science has two different external examiners yet, according to the Commentary, '...the Faculty is satisfied that this does not significantly increase the risk to equality of standards...'. All new external examiners are invited, along with the relevant Course Director from the partner institution, to a University and Faculty induction session. Other local induction takes place in accordance with the University's expectations as set out in the External Examiner's Handbook. Although the audit team noted that there was no mention of any specific arrangements for international collaborative partnerships, HKCT staff confirmed that they had undertaken induction with external examiners at the University.
55 The external examiner's annual report to the University is distributed to the relevant faculty and partner institution for consideration and response. This is monitored through the annual course review process. A response may be required from the Faculty and/or the University; the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) addresses any university-level issues and also produces an annual overview report to the Teaching and Learning Committee on external examiner reports. The audit team noted, from the findings of the University's recent collaborative provision audit, that the University's external examining arrangements were found to be rigorous and aligned with the relevant precepts of the Code of practice.
Certificates and transcripts
56 The Commentary contained a copy of the award parchment, dated June 2005, as provided to the HKCT students. This stated that the award was 'offered jointly' by the University and HKCT. After further enquiry, the audit team was provided with a version dated November 2006, which indicated that the course of study was 'offered by' HKCT. As the name of the partner contains its geographical location, the team concluded that this later version met the expectations of the Code of practice in respect of its comprehensiveness. The team noted that the University's Student Records System was being populated with module information for validated provision leading to a University award delivered at HKCT. The team further noted that module enrolment data for new students would be entered at the time of their registration. University transcripts would therefore be available for all students commencing a course of study at a partner institution leading to a University award from 2006 onwards. The team concluded that no transcripts have been, or are likely to be, provided to students studying for the University's awards at HKCT.
Quality of information and support for students
Student information
57 The Commentary stated that HKCT drafts and subsequently publishes its own publicity material for the validated programmes it offers. Draft versions are provided to the FHCC for approval. Students confirmed that, as part of the recruitment process, they had either attended a HKCT seminar which outlined the nature of the top-up programmes, or viewed HKCT's website. Few students were aware of any formal advertising material for the courses. Students confirmed that they had all been interviewed. They believed that the HKCT Higher Diploma had been accepted as evidence of their proficiency in English.
58 The Commentary stated that students undergo induction sessions and are provided with a course handbook with information on the course structure and content with detailed module descriptions. The Student Handbook is issued at registration. Students also receive module handbooks and guidelines including specific details of different modules, but the timing of issue of these was not stated. HKCT staff confirmed that course handbooks are produced at HKCT and are then sent for approval by the University. Students whom the audit team met confirmed that they had received course handbooks, containing programme, module and project information. Students and graduates confirmed that the material was useful to them in explaining the detail of the courses.
Student support arrangements
59 The Recognition Agreement states that, at all times, the students are HKCT students and are subject to HKCT's rules, ordinances, and regulations. They are not students of the University. Information on HKCT's discipline, library-user conduct and procedures for complaints and appeals is published in student handbooks. The complaints procedure is located in the student feedback section and the appeals procedure is called an 'Application for Review of Decisions'. The audit team noted that the appeals procedure was different to that operating at the University: whereas the University allows for an initial appeal to be heard by an impartial third party, HKCT students are required to make their initial appeal to the Chair of the Board of Examiners. The University has been considering the apparent discrepancy between these two procedures for some time. The recent collaborative provision audit recommended that the University should, '...bring to a coherent and timely conclusion its deliberations on the right of CP students to appeal to the University'. The University subsequently established a working group, which found no grounds for affording students of partner institutions a final right of appeal to the University. In consequence, the University has reaffirmed its position that students on collaborative programmes should have access to appropriate appeals processes within their own institutions, that this information should be made known to students in the relevant institutional and programme literature and that the responsibility of the University to ensure the availability of such a process, is distinct from the responsibility of partners to provide it.
60 Students who met the audit team confirmed that they were aware of the appeals and complaints procedures but none of those present had made an appeal or complaint. They indicated that they would email the Course Director if they had any problems. In addition, students and graduates told the team that they regarded themselves as students of the University, although they are not. As the HKCT students are studying for awards of the University, the team considered that they should have the right of appeal to the University, reflecting good practice across the UK higher education sector and equality of opportunity considerations.
61 The FHCC aims to meet students informally when visiting HKCT and, where possible, Staff/Student Consultative Committee meetings are arranged so that the FHCC can attend. Students confirmed that University staff had been involved during induction and the FHCC had visited HKCT at least once a year.
62 The University expects HKCT to be self-sufficient in student support provision and checks this expectation at initial approval and revalidation events. In-between these formal checks, the FHCC is responsible for maintaining an overview on behalf of the University.
63 Students who met the audit team confirmed that they were aware of the student support arrangements available to them via HKCT. However, because of the part-time nature of the programmes, few students accessed the support available. They considered HKCT's computing facilities to be acceptable, although all students had access to their own equipment. The students made little use of the HKCT library or the University's e-library, indicating that their local public library tended to be more useful.
Student input into quality management
64 Student representatives on the Staff/Student Consultative Committee should be elected but, because of the relatively small numbers, all students are invited to attend. Even so, the minutes of meetings indicated a low turnout among students. The Commentary stated that the outcomes of the Committee's meetings, '...are communicated to students through announcements in lectures'. HKCT also invites students to participate in course committee meetings, but again student attendance is low. Students complete internal questionnaires at module level and they also complete an annual course evaluation questionnaire. The results of these questionnaires feed into the annual course review process.
65 Students confirmed that their feedback is heard and that changes to the courses for the following year are communicated by staff. Student representatives also confirmed that they were able to pass comments to their peers. However, they commented that the part-time mode of the course made this difficult at times. On the basis of the feedback from students, it appeared to the audit team that there is effective student input to the quality assurance processes at course level.
Conclusion
66 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following points for consideration by the University:
- allowing one person to perform both the role of FHCC and that of subject expert may present a risk to the management of quality and standards should the postholder leave the University. The University may therefore wish to review the combination of these two roles and the support provided for the postholder at institutional level (paragraphs 17; 42).
67 In developing and managing any future overseas collaborations, the audit team would encourage the University to pay particular attention to:
- estimating more robustly the likely demand for collaborative provision, to help limit the number of courses which may be subsequently withdrawn because of a lack of demand (paragraph 29)
- including, within the formal partnership agreements or memoranda, the residual obligations of partners to students in the event of an agreement being terminated, including the obligations of the awarding institution to enable students to complete their studies leading to the award; and a specification of the role of external examiners in ensuring that the awarding body can fulfil its responsibilities for the academic standard of its award (paragraph 30)
- ensuring that learning resources are adequate for degree-level study (paragraph 35)
- promoting student representation among part-time students (paragraph 36)
- monitoring selection and admission, including the extent to which its partners are applying the University's English language requirements (paragraphs 46; 48)
- strengthening its formal oversight of course assessment processes, to include project proposal approval and coursework assessment (paragraph 53).
68 The Commentary provided a helpful account of the operation of the collaborative provision, with particular reference to the Code of practice. The audit team found that the University had given consideration to the Code in its management of collaborative provision. Whilst the University's policies and procedures were found to be in general alignment with the precepts of the Code, the team formed the view that, as the students are studying for awards of the University, good practice and equality of opportunity considerations would suggest that they should have the right of appeal to the University. The Commentary provided the team with a descriptive appraisal of the collaborative arrangement, indicating that the quality assurance arrangements at HKCT were representative of the University's procedures and practices in its overseas collaborative partnership. The team concluded that academic standards in the collaborative arrangement were generally secure and that the quality of the learning opportunities was adequate for the nature of the provision.
ISBN 978 1 84482 755 8
Top