Overseas Quality Audit Report

University of Warwick and Hong Kong Polytechnic University
MAY 2007

RG 341 10/07

PDF version

Contents

• Introduction
• The audit process for collaborative link
• Formal arrangements for establishing the link
• Quality management of the link
• Assurance of academic standards
• Quality of information and support for students
• Conclusion
• Appendix A
• Appendix B

---

University of Warwick audit of overseas provision

1 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between the University of Warwick (Warwick), through the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), through the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering.

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 Warwick was conducted by QAA in March 2004.

3 One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2007, QAA conducted audits of selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Hong Kong. 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 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 that 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 PolyU is the largest UGC-funded tertiary institution in Hong Kong in terms of student numbers. The wide range of provision offered reflects PolyU's focus on directly meeting industrial, commercial and community needs, and it has established strong partnerships with the business and industrial sectors. This focus resonates with Warwick's aims and objectives.

11 The collaboration encompasses three programmes, providing a range of progression opportunities for students. The Integrated Manager Development Scheme (IMDS), which is no longer recruiting in Hong Kong, leads to the Post-experience Certificate or Diploma in Engineering Business Management. The Integrated Graduate Development Scheme (IGDS), which attracted its highest intake of 154 in 1996, since which time student numbers have stabilised at approximately 70, can lead to several awards, offered either jointly or singly by Warwick. Joint awards are available for MSc/Postgraduate Diploma programmes in Engineering Business Management, and in Manufacturing Systems Engineering. Warwick awards offered as part of this scheme include MSc/Postgraduate Diploma/Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Awards in Engineering Business Management, and in Manufacturing Systems Engineering; and Postgraduate Awards in Electronic Business Management; Quality; and Supply Engineering and Logistics. The third Warwick programme leads to the award of the Engineering Doctorate (EngD). There are currently 10 students on the EngD. In total, the partnership has resulted in the delivery of WMG programmes to over 2000 students.

12 Negotiations about the possibility of collaboration between Warwick and the then Hong Kong Polytechnic, began in 1989. Warwick's Senate granted approval for the MSc in Manufacturing Systems Engineering programme to commence in January 1990 and a partnership agreement was signed. The MSc in Engineering Business Management was approved by Warwick in 1990 for delivery in Hong Kong as well as the UK. The initial collaboration was extended to encompass the EngD in 1993. Hong Kong Polytechnic became a university in 1994.

13 At the outset, Warwick was very much the lead partner but, as PolyU has developed and the relationship has matured, the relationship has evolved into one of joint partnership. In 1999, both universities gave approval for the MSc in Manufacturing Systems Engineering and the MSc in Engineering Business Management to be offered as joint awards. The Hong Kong-based provision is subject to the same policies, procedures and responsibilities that apply to Warwick-based programmes.

14 PolyU's Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering now has approximately 39 members of academic staff and the experience gained through the maturing relationship with Warwick has assisted in the development of the Department's own portfolio of postgraduate programmes. Staff and students involved in the collaborative provision have benefited from the exposure to different approaches to teaching and learning and the benefits accruing from the combined strengths of Warwick and PolyU staff, which is further enhanced by the contributions made to the programmes by individuals from industry.

15 The Commentary indicated that the programmes are unusual in terms of overseas collaboration in that they are neither distance-learning nor franchise programmes. It suggested that distance delivery was a more accurate description of the provision since the taught component of the programmes is delivered primarily by Warwick staff, who also deliver the same module in the UK and elsewhere, ensuring consistency across all WMG delivery locations as a consequence.

The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision

16 The institutional audit of 2004 found that there was no general strategy for the development of partnerships (except for working with local further education colleges). This appears no longer to be the case. Warwick's international strategy indicates that it aims to 'command an international reputation for the highest quality education, research and engagement with the wider economy and society'. The audit team was told of Warwick's desire to increase collaborative provision through joint awards, particularly in Europe, but was not aware that this aim had been formalised in a written collaborative strategy statement.

17 Warwick considers that it has in place light-touch but suitably robust quality assurance mechanisms that enable it to respond to collaborative initiatives in an appropriate and timely manner. Collaborative activity is conducted within the context of Warwick's infrastructure for ensuring the quality of all its taught programmes. Senate is ultimately responsible for standards and the quality assurance framework. Operationally, this responsibility is delegated to the Collaborative, Flexible and Distributed Learning Sub-Committee (CFDLSC) of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC). The central (University) Steering Committee, a formally constituted committee of the Senate, must also be satisfied that the business case is sound.

18 At institutional level, central committees and bodies (see paragraph 17 above) are heavily involved in initial approval, and thereafter rely upon the integrity of academic units and its standard quality assurance processes to manage the standards and quality of collaborative partnerships. Warwick has developed a standard agreement template, which is modified for each 'unique' collaboration and which includes arrangements in the event of termination. It maintains a comprehensive register of its overseas educational partnerships in the form of a list, published on its website. Responsibility for maintaining this register rests with the Teaching Quality Team. Warwick uses the normal annual review, external examining, periodic review and strategic review processes to assure itself of the quality and standards of programmes on the register.

19 Formal processes are regulated by the requirements of Warwick's collaborative staff handbook, which sets out the administrative arrangements for collaborative programmes managed by Warwick. This handbook aims to clarify procedures for Warwick's course coordinators, members of validation and franchise groups and other administrative and clerical staff, whether based at Warwick or within its partner institutions.

20 The Commentary stated that Warwick seeks to ensure parity of standards across its provision, wherever this is delivered. It drew attention to the fact that students registered through the collaborative partnership are considered by the same boards of examiners as all other WMG students, and according to the same rules and conventions.

21 Warwick's approach to overseas collaborative provision takes account of the Code of practice, published by QAA, and, in particular, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning); Section 4: External examining; Section 5: Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters; Section 6: Assessment of students; and Section 10: Student recruitment and admissions. Warwick's quality handbook, which is based upon the precepts of the Code, and which places the Code in a Warwick context, encompasses the quality procedures to be followed and provides guidance for faculties and approval committees. New regulations and revised guidelines, which take account of the revised Section 2 of the Code came into effect for the 2006-07 academic year. Their development has been informed by an ongoing internal audit of Warwick's existing partnership arrangements, which has enabled Warwick to build on good practice across its educational partnerships, as well as identifying common areas for improvement. The audit team considered that Warwick's general practice is aligned with the Code.

Public information, publicity and promotional activity

22 The audit team had access to a range of publicity and promotional material issued by PolyU. This included a website in English, where the partnership between the two universities is made explicit. The team also noted that each year, at induction, participants at PolyU receive handbooks that are initially prepared at Warwick and then supplemented in Hong Kong.

23 Warwick initially approves publicity materials relating to the programme issued by PolyU. While there is not a requirement for subsequent scrutiny by Warwick, the audit team was assured that, in practice, material published by PolyU is reviewed annually with WMG's Academic Director of Graduate Studies. While the agreement relates to practice at the time the agreement was signed, the current operational manual does not imply any closer scrutiny of partner publicity material.

24 The audit team noted a reference to Warwick/PolyU provision being delivered in Wuhan, China, on the WMG website but was told that this arrangement had been suspended, pending renewed People's Republic of China approval. Given this, the team formed the view that Warwick may wish to consider whether sufficient controls are in place to ensure the accuracy of publicity and marketing material issued in electronic or hard copy.

Formal arrangements for establishing the link

Selecting and approving the partner institution

25 The partnership negotiations included an inspection of PolyU facilities. The two universities were said to share similar aims and values and PolyU's structures and procedures were considered to be comparable to those of Warwick. At the outset of the discussions leading to the launch of the collaborative provision, the Board of the Faculty of Science (the Faculty in which the WMG is located) was responsible for approving the provision and ensuring that appropriate quality assurance arrangements were in place for the partnership, bearing in mind that this was not an overseas programme but an overseas route for an existing programme. The provision was also subject to scrutiny through Warwick's normal quality assurance processes.

26 The audit team reviewed the approval reports relating to the collaborative provision and considered that the reports provided evidence of thorough scrutiny of resources available at PolyU. On the basis of the evidence available to the team, it formed the view that Warwick is appropriately thorough in establishing and monitoring new partnerships.

Programme approval

27 Warwick's Quality Handbook encompasses the quality procedures to be followed and provides guidance, as appropriate. WMG, which appears to have extensive delegated authority, has established its own internal quality procedures to complement those established at university-level.

28 In the course of the audit, the audit team learnt that new and revised postgraduate courses are initially approved at faculty level, in this case, the Graduate Studies Committee of the Board of the Faculty of Science (SGS). They are then considered by the Board of Graduate Studies (BGS) and Senate. Small changes are made to modules by Warwick and PolyU teaching staff jointly, often in response to student feedback, and the programme leader informs the programme committee of any such changes. Warwick clarified that new and amended collaborative courses, and new or amended modules on collaborative courses are also scrutinised by CFDLSC. New and revised courses are not now considered by the Senate, except where they involve new collaborations.

29 If there are new issues of principle associated with the proposed course, it is also considered by the University's AQSC. Before being forwarded for consideration by higher-level Warwick committees, the proposals are considered by WMG's Academic Quality Group (AQG), which meets on a quarterly basis, and they are signed off by the proposed Course Leader and the Academic Director of Graduate Studies (acting on behalf of the Divisional Leader).

Written agreements with the partner institution

30 The agreement with the Hong Kong partner pre-dates the standard agreement template introduced by Warwick and remains unchanged, notwithstanding the introduction of Warwick's new agreement template and the developments that have taken place in the life of the partnership. The audit team noted that the existing agreement did not include reference to arrangements in the event of termination. It was reassured, partly by example of a termination of a partnership elsewhere, that Warwick would always ensure that the interests of its students were fully protected. Further reassurance that existing students would be given the opportunity to graduate was provided by PolyU senior staff whom the team met in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the team is of the view that Warwick should reconsider the case for updating existing agreements and, in particular, should consider the addition of a termination clause in the extant agreement.

Quality management of the link

Management of the link

31 The WMG Academic Director of Graduate Studies, who visits Hong Kong twice a year, is responsible for coordinating operational and academic matters. Within WMG, the monthly Teaching Liaison Committee is responsible for infrastructure and resources for taught programmes while the Academic Executive (which has recently been replaced by a WMG board) is responsible for strategic issues. The following WMG committees carry out specific functions relating to academic quality. The AQG is responsible for approving all new activities on behalf of WMG before scrutiny at university-level. The Assessment Review Panel is responsible for ensuring the quality, fairness and consistency of WMG's academic assessment of students. The Overseas Programmes Committee is responsible for the operation of, and academic matters associated with, the overseas MSc and IMDS programmes. The EngD Executive is responsible for the operation of, and academic matters associated with, all EngD programmes. Overseas collaborative programmes each have Liaison/Management Committees, which meet at least annually and are responsible for the strategic and operational matters associated with their specific programme.

32 There is a significant amount of contact and communication between the partners, including WMG staff visits to PolyU. In terms of day-to-day management, PolyU is linked directly to WMG for both commercial and academic purposes. The Academic Director of Graduate Studies in the WMG manages communications with PolyU. Acknowledging the risk of over-reliance on one individual, deputies have now been nominated to particular overseas programmes. There is daily contact between administrative staff of the two partners regarding exchange of information, regular communication through module tutors, and regular contact with EngD mentors appointed at both Warwick and PolyU.

33 The approval procedure, formal institutional agreement, student feedback procedures, annual programme and module reviews, and visits to PolyU ensure that appropriate academic standards are established and maintained. The internal and external quality assurance mechanisms by which the provision is kept under review and monitored have matured over the life of the partnership. The programmes are mainly taught and assessed by University of Warwick staff who travel to Hong Kong regularly. The same policies, procedures and responsibilities apply as for Warwick-based programmes.

34 Warwick remains responsible for all aspects of quality assurance and manages student admissions in the same way as for all Warwick-based programmes. The BGS (see paragraph 28 above) has granted WMG delegated responsibility for making offers to potential candidates for the MSc and post-experience programmes. The WMG considers applications for accreditation of prior learning (APL) into its taught programmes, against specific criteria, in accordance with Warwick's guidelines.

35 Each year PolyU reviews the portfolio of modules that will run. Decisions are made in consultation with students and industrialists before suggestions are made to Warwick, which then considers tutor availability. Within each module there is some local flexibility regarding taught content, as long as the established learning outcomes are met. Learning outcomes and linked assessment are benchmarked, via Warwick committees, to The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) at master's level.

36 Warwick holds student records and information on student progress and achievement, with data being currently transferred via WMG's (local) student record system to Warwick's (central) student records system. Warwick is working towards a system whereby data are transferred from assessment boards directly to its record system, allowing for the production of transcripts and certificates.

Monitoring and review

37 The programmes are subject to annual monitoring, involving an evaluation of programme delivery and drawing upon the views of teaching staff, external examiners and students. Annual reports are intended to evaluate programme delivery and to draw upon the views of teaching staff, external examiners and students. They are considered by the SGS and CFDLSC at Warwick. The audit team considered a number of annual reports dating from 2003. It noted that actions were listed and that an analysis of the progress made on previous years' actions was provided.

38 The audit team noted that, as part of its overview of the annual review process, the CFDLSC identified turnaround times for marking assessments being in excess of Warwick norms, and that the processes in place within WMG appeared reactive in resolving many issues. Furthermore, the CFDLSC found no improvement in the excessive reliance placed on one individual for the management and administration of the collaborative provision.

39 In the light of these concerns, a working group incorporating senior Warwick representation and expertise in quality assurance and collaborative matters, was established to work with the WMG on a range of matters. The Working Group, set up by Warwick's AQSC in 2005, made 24 recommendations which led to a strengthening of some policies and processes and a more explicit reporting process. However, there were no bespoke arrangements to ensure that the recommendations were addressed with reliance being placed on standard committee cycle and reporting processes. The audit team also noted that there appeared to be no knowledge of the 2005 review report at PolyU.

40 The audit team is of the opinion that the need for the 2005 review highlighted a tension between, on the one hand, quality assurance issues and, on the other, an entrepreneurial approach to overseas provision. In the team's view, it is too early to tell if an appropriate balance has been struck, given that some matters raised in the original Working Group report do not appear to have been acted on in full (see below, paragraphs 53 and 55). Consequently, the team formed the view that it would be beneficial for Warwick to revisit the original recommendations of what seemed to have been a thorough and comprehensive review.

41 Meetings with Warwick staff demonstrated that they were broadly familiar with the policies and procedures relating to (international) educational partnerships, and cited benefits such as the opportunities for staff development, a greater cultural mix and diversity, increased income generation and the positive impact on the recruitment of international students to Warwick's UK-based courses. However, more generally, the audit team discerned a lack of clarity about Warwick's or WMG's strategic mission and objectives in this area. The team considered that the production of an overview report of Warwick's international partnership provision, involving the collation of matters arising from individual annual reports, good practice and the identification of action points, might be helpful in enabling staff in departments to locate partnership activities within the overall institutional framework.

Periodic review

42 Warwick conducts regular reviews of departments and their courses every five years. Until recently, its major course review mechanism was the five-yearly periodic review, which focused on the quality and standards of programmes rather than scrutiny of the whole partnership. The last periodic review of WMG's collaborative provision took place in 2003. That review was satisfied with WMG's response to recommendations, noting that WMG would continue to monitor turnaround times for marking assessed work, and that guidance on feedback to students was provided to WMG staff. The periodic review processes have been modified since then. The new process has been in operation since autumn 2006 and merges the periodic review and five-yearly departmental review processes. This new process will be used to review the Engineering provision in 2007-08.

Staffing and staff development

43 Warwick staff who teach in Hong Kong are predominantly Warwick Teaching Fellows. One of the recommendations of the 2005 review was that WMG should draft a statement for AQSC, stating the academic rationale for the delivery of significant teaching at master's level by Teaching Fellows. A rationale was provided in October 2005, and part of the justification for the use of Teaching Fellows is that they are recruited to directly meet the needs of these vocational programmes. As such, they have tended to have more industrial and professional qualifications than the traditional academic. The audit team noted that Teaching Fellows may attend courses provided by the Centre for Academic Practice at Warwick, but are not required to undertake any formal staff development at Warwick for either their UK-based role or their role as module tutors and teachers in Hong Kong. The team further noted that there is only infrequent use of peer review or observation in Hong Kong and was told that analysis of feedback from students was deemed sufficient to gauge student satisfaction levels with the teaching received.

44 At the beginning of the partnership, all of the teaching was done by Warwick staff, and PolyU provided project supervisors. As the partnership has matured, PolyU staff have shared module teaching and are now providing 50 per cent of programme content and assessment, with oversight provided by Warwick module tutors. Academic supervisors assigned to supervise EngD student projects usually have a doctorate, previous experience of research student supervision and they attend the annual students' workshop; additionally, EngD students have an industrial supervisor and a Warwick mentor. The audit team found little evidence of any formal staff development from Warwick for EngD supervisors and, consequently, came to the view that Warwick might consider introducing more formal staff development opportunities for its own Teaching Fellows and for the academic staff of PolyU.

Student admissions

45 The standard entry requirements for the programmes, as set out in the programme specifications and programme regulations, are not identical to those for the Warwick-based programmes. PolyU staff stated that students admitted to the joint award programmes must have a first degree. This is not a condition of entry for the Warwick-only programmes.

46 Applicants whose first language is not English and whose previous degree was not taught and assessed in English, are required to have achieved at least 6.5 in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the College English Test (CET) level 6, or equivalent. Some applicants are asked to take a written test. PolyU has an English Language centre, which is little used by students on the collaborative provision, given their existing proficiency in English and their status as professional engineers.

47 Student applications are entered into the PolyU database before interviews are held with PolyU staff. A letter of recommendation from the Director of Studies is sent to Warwick, where a decision is made in the same way as for any Warwick-based WMG degree programme. Warwick staff may be involved in interviews of EngD applicants. PolyU staff told the audit team of long delays in Warwick's response to two EngD applicants who were still awaiting a decision.

48 The audit team found that progression statistics provided originally in the Commentary and data provided in tabled documentation appeared to be inconsistent, although it is understood that the latter are regarded as definitive. The team noted that the data indicated declining intakes for all three 'programmes', with the IGDS MSc programmes being effectively the only provision still recruiting, albeit with its intake halved over the years. Warwick informed the team that the decline has now been checked.

49 Students intending to enrol on the EngD who do not have an appropriate MSc are provisionally registered for the Postgraduate Award (see paragraph 11 above). This gives time for the students to complete three taught modules, prepare a draft portfolio and a literature review and allows a decision regarding suitability for the EngD to be taken towards the end of the first year.

Assurance of academic standards

Assessment of students

50 The Commentary claimed that common assessment processes ensure that academic standards are maintained and the processes for the award of credit are secure, irrespective of place of study. Students studying at PolyU are assessed using the same methods and criteria as those at Warwick; details of which are to be found in student handbooks. External examiners for each programme report on academic standards as part of their annual reports. These external examiners cover both UK-based and international provision and can directly compare standards.

51 In accordance with Warwick's quality assurance guidelines, a module leader (or module tutor within WMG) is appointed for each module. The WMG provides module tutors with specific guidelines on their responsibilities as tutors, and assessment guidelines for the different levels of programmes. Each module is either assessed or moderated by Warwick tutors. The WMG has full responsibility for the assessment process. PolyU staff now undertake assessment of approximately 50 per cent of the module assignments as well as projects.

52 Comprehensive procedures and guidelines for assessment and moderation of major projects were developed and introduced at the time of a mini-review of the collaborative provision undertaken at PolyU in 2002. These were claimed to have resulted in increased consistency, particularly among industrial assessors. However, the audit team noted that the 2005 review recommended that WMG develop a revised project-assessment model, in which industrial supervisors are involved in commenting on particular aspects of projects, including the contribution made by a project to the company concerned, but do not mark IGDS projects, which must be double-marked and moderated.

53 The audit team heard conflicting statements from Warwick staff concerning the involvement of industrialists in the assessment of projects. Discussions with staff, students and industrial supervisors in Hong Kong led the team to understand that industrial supervisors provide 50 per cent of the project marks, which are subsequently moderated by a member of Warwick staff in a visit to PolyU. The team reviewed the comprehensive moderation reports for the last four years and was reassured that this process ensured fair treatment of individual students. However, there was evidence that industrial supervisors are generally awarding higher marks than the academic supervisors and that, in some cases, this was moderated downwards by over 10 per cent. While noting that industrial supervisors are from the same discipline as the student, are prepared by PolyU staff, and have written guidance for their role, which includes assessment criteria, it was not clear to the team how Warwick is able to ensure that there is a consistent approach to assessment on the part of the industrial supervisors. Furthermore, it was not apparent that Warwick had provided any formal preparation for industrial and academic supervisors engaged in supervisory roles, leading the team to the view that Warwick might usefully strengthen its monitoring of projects and their assessment.

54 Statistical comparisons between progression rates and classifications obtained by students studying part-time in the UK compared to those studying in Hong Kong are not routinely available. However, Warwick staff who met the audit team indicated that, in their view and that of the external examiners, student performance at both locations is consistent. The team noted that a large number of PolyU students do not complete the full MSc and opt for a Diploma or Certificate. It further noted that the number of 'live' candidates from 2002 and 2003 indicates that many students are taking longer to complete the award than the normal expectation of three years specified in the regulations.

55 Since the 2005 review, feedback in respect of students' work has improved to an average of 42 days, which is equivalent to the UK-based programme. The audit team was informed by Warwick staff that electronic submission of student work is being considered and, in the view of the staff, this was expected to improve feedback times. Staff and students who met the team indicated that there was room for improvement in relation to assessment feedback times, and the team would wish to encourage Warwick to keep under review the progress made on the matter of electronic submission, and the provision of more timely feedback to students.

56 It appeared to the audit team that other than modules which included some in-course assessment, case-studies or tests, there was little opportunity for formative assessment during the taught element of the programmes. Students who met the team stated that they were well prepared for post-module summative assessment and that assessment criteria are made very clear at the end of each module teaching week.

External examining

57 The external examiners for the Warwick-based programmes are responsible for the whole portfolio of programmes, including those offered at PolyU, although they do not visit Hong Kong for external examining purposes. The examiners are recruited and appointed using the same process as all other external examiners and their reports are discussed and disseminated in the standard way. Examination boards are held in Warwick and are attended by the Director of Studies or by one of the Associate Directors from PolyU specifically for the joint awards.

58 The external examiners are present when award decisions are made. The Commentary emphasised the importance of the position of external examiners and explicitly mentioned their role in 'confirming parity of quality and standards to comparable UK provision'. The audit team noted discussion of external examiners' reports in the minutes of Warwick's CFDLSC. It also noted that external examiners' reports were discussed at programme and faculty level at PolyU and that reports from the relevant faculty were considered by relevant committees at a central level within PolyU. On the basis of the team's reading of external examiner reports, it appeared to the team that the external examiner reports are comprehensive, constructive and potentially of considerable assistance to those teaching on the collaborative provision.

Certificates and transcripts

59 Warwick provided samples of certificates and transcripts issued to students on successful completion of their studies. Those students studying on the joint MSc programmes receive a certificate that mentions both universities. Neither the transcript nor the certificate indicates the place of study. The audit team found the transcript, produced at PolyU, to be otherwise commendably thorough, providing grades and credit values for each module. The team considered that it might be worth adding a set of explanatory notes detailing the relationships between percentages, grades and grade descriptors within the context of the FHEQ.

Quality of information and support for students

Student information and support

60 The audit team viewed recruitment and other promotional materials available to students. These made clear PolyU's association with Warwick, described the provision, stated admission requirements and procedures, programme structures, programme aims and objectives, and the modules available. Students who met the team reported that the information provided to them, both in promotional materials and at interview, had proved to be accurate and helpful.

61 Students on all programmes register with Warwick and are therefore entitled to the same rights and equivalent resources to students studying on any other Warwick programme. The registration process takes approximately two months to complete before full access to facilities is gained. Students complete the same registration form as UK-based Warwick students. In addition, the joint students are granted student status in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at PolyU to enable them to access PolyU libraries and other teaching, support and information technology (IT) facilities. This distinction is made clear to students from the outset of their studies, in student handbooks and in publicity material relating to the programmes.

62 The Academic Director of Graduate Studies from Warwick travels to Hong Kong each year to deliver an induction programme and students who met the audit team attested to the effectiveness of the programme. This involves a general introduction covering the roles of key staff and student representatives, the use of library and IT facilities, and the academic and personal support available to students. A student handbook is also distributed. Student handbooks are prepared by staff of WMG and then augmented with local information by staff at PolyU. The team saw several examples of programme and module handbooks and found them to be informative and comprehensive.

63 Before the start of MSc and EngD projects, staff from Warwick and PolyU present a half-day introductory seminar. Students who met the audit team confirmed that this was very helpful to them. Most projects are based within a student's company, and students suggest and refine project titles with assistance from academic supervisors before the standard template provided by Warwick is approved by the PolyU Associate Director of Studies with responsibility for projects, and approvals reported to WMG. Academic supervisors meet students approximately every three months and communicate via email in between meetings. Students expressed satisfaction at the level of support provided by their supervisors. The team would endorse a suggestion from industrial supervisors and students that academic supervisors should visit students in their companies at least once during the project to enhance their understanding of the context within which a project proposal is located.

64 During the introductory seminar for the project, students receive guidance on referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. They are encouraged to use electronic plagiarism detection software before submitting their work. However, staff and students were of the opinion that this is not a major issue, since most assignments and projects are unique, given their company-based nature.

65 PolyU students provide feedback through module feedback forms and the Staff-Student Liaison Committee (SSLC). Staff at both Warwick and PolyU, and students who met the audit team, also pointed out that staff are responsive to student feedback on an informal and daily basis. The team met student representatives, read the minutes of the biannual SSLC meetings, and discussed the operation of such meetings with both staff and students. The Warwick policy, that one of the students should fulfil the role of secretary of the SSLC meetings, is applied by PolyU. The same person ensures alumni and current students are equally well informed about meetings and outcomes. Students were satisfied with the opportunities available for their input and the subsequent responsiveness of staff. There is an active alumni association, which organises and shares events with current students.

66 Joint programme students expressed their general satisfaction with the facilities provided and indicated that they had open access to computers and specialist laboratories. They also had access to the PolyU library which, some students suggested, held insufficient copies of text books, although this was mitigated to some extent by the fact that the students also have remote access to Warwick and other Hong Kong libraries. Students registered for programmes leading to a Warwick-only award indicated that they had to pay an additional fee to access PolyU's library and computing facilities.

Conclusion

67 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following positive features:

• the staff and student exposure to different approaches to teaching and learning and the benefits accruing from the combined strengths of Warwick and PolyU staff, which is further enhanced by the contributions made by individuals based in industry (paragraph 14)
• the contribution made by Warwick to the development of postgraduate level teaching and provision at PolyU (paragraph 14).

68 The audit team identified the following points for consideration by Warwick as it develops its partnership arrangements:

• the means by which Warwick ensures itself that it has control over the accuracy of electronic and hard-copy material relating to its provision (paragraph 24)
• the case for reviewing the agreement between Warwick and PolyU to reflect the introduction of the joint programme and to bring the agreement into line with current procedures. Warwick might also wish to reflect on the desirability of reviewing collaborative agreements entered into on its behalf at appropriate intervals, with a view to updating such agreements as necessary (paragraph 30)
• the inclusion of the residual responsibilities of the respective partners in the event of termination of the collaborative agreement (paragraph 30)
• the desirability of revisiting the original recommendations of the thorough and comprehensive 2005 review findings relating to the collaborative provision (paragraph 40)
• the introduction of formal staff development for Warwick's Teaching Fellows and for the academic staff of PolyU, building upon the informal development opportunities available (paragraph 44)
• the timeliness with which EngD applications are managed and decisions communicated to applicants (paragraph 47)
• the desirability of strengthening its monitoring of projects and their assessment (paragraph 53)
• the timeliness of feedback to students on their assignments, which should be facilitated by progress towards electronic submission of students' work (paragraph 55).

69 The Commentary was helpful in its coverage and provided a generally accurate representation of this partnership. The audit team considered that Warwick was operating the partnership with an appropriate regard for the Code of practice. Aspects of Warwick's practice that could be improved are identified in the main report and in the points for further consideration. Noting, in particular, the 2005 review of WMG courses delivered overseas, and the recommendations arising from that review, the findings of the audit support confidence in Warwick's stewardship of academic standards and the quality of learning in its overseas collaborative provision.

Appendix A

The University welcomes the report on the collaborative link between the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) and the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). The University in particular welcomes confirmation of its own view that quality and standards are high on these courses, and comparable with quality and standards on WMG's other courses, whether delivered in the UK or in collaboration with its other overseas partners, and that the support and information provided to students is very helpful.

The University has already responded to the points for consideration. We have undertaken a review of the contracts and agreements covering all our collaborative courses, and WMG is continuing to improve the timeliness of feedback to students on their assessed work. Colleagues at WMG and PolyU are working together to develop further staff development opportunities, as one way of sharing expertise and good practice between the two universities.

Appendix B

Course	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year (EngD only)	In extension/Examiners decision
Warwick-awarded Engineering
Business Management	7	20	10		19
Jointly awarded Engineering
Business Management	21	41	32		41
Warwick-awarded Manufacturing
Systems Engineering	1	2	4		2
Jointly awarded Manufacturing
Systems Engineering	3	4	5		10
EngD	-	-	1	-	4

ISBN 978 1 84482 760 2