Overseas Quality Audit Report

Thames Valley University and Informatics Open Institute Hong Kong
May 2007

RG 349 12/07

PDF version

Contents

• Introduction
• The audit process for overseas collaborative links
• The background to the collaborative link
• Management and quality assurance of the link
• Assurance of academic standards
• Quality of information and support for students
• Conclusions
• Appendix A: Update on the partnership since the audit provided by Thames Valley University
• Appendix B: Summary of current student numbers

---

Thames Valley University and the Informatics Open Institute Hong Kong audit of overseas provision

1 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between Thames Valley University (TVU or the University), through the Faculty of Professional Studies and Informatics Holdings Limited, Singapore (IHL), through Informatics Open Institute Hong Kong (IOI).

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 TVU was conducted by QAA in November 2005.

3 One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions 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 overseas collaborative links

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 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 The Faculty of Professional Studies, the TVU faculty involved in this collaboration, has established a number of collaborative links in the UK and overseas. While each link is customised to suit the particular circumstances of a collaboration, programmes 'are operated and monitored to a common standard'. IHL is a private company with a global network of 138 centres in 23 countries. It started its Hong Kong operations in 1992. IHL and TVU share a similar ethos and approach to students, based on a commitment to lifelong learning and vocationally relevant education. IHL owns IOI and is responsible for international relationships, providing business and academic support to IOI when required. IOI has operational responsibility for the link with TVU.

11 The Agreement between IHL and TVU was signed in 1998 and local recognition of the open learning six year, part-time Bachelor in Business Administration (BBA) degree, offered by IOI in Hong Kong, was granted with effect from September 2000. The Commentary states that since that time, 586 students have enrolled on the pathway and 182 students have completed their studies. There are 323 students currently registered on the BBA.

The UK institution's approach to overseas collaborative provision

12 TVU's Quality Handbook indicates that 'the responsibility for quality and standards is shared by all those who support students learning' while the Academic Board has ultimate responsibility for the academic standards of awards granted in TVU's name. The Academic Board receives an annual analysis of external examiner comments, separating out collaborative partnerships and identifying any matters to be addressed. The Academic Standards Committee (ASC), a committee of the Academic Board, exercises oversight of quality and standards and advises the Board on the quality and standards of programmes leading to TVU awards. The ASC receives periodic review and external audit reports on collaborative provision. The Board's Academic Planning Committee (APC) is responsible for policy development and has delegated authority to approve proposals for a new partner or for new programme(s) with an existing partner. The APC receives regular updates on the status of international partnerships. Faculty Boards are also committees of Academic Board and their terms of reference make clear their role in 'overseeing the faculty based arrangements for academic standards and quality assurance'.

13 The Commentary provided little information about the relationship between faculty-level committees and senior committees at TVU. However, a supplementary paper provided for the audit team clarified where monitoring and reporting of this partnership sits within the University's structures for overseeing and monitoring collaborative provision. This paper indicated that the 'detailed monitoring and reporting of quality and standards of specific provision occurs within faculties and their deliberative structures' and that Faculty Board minutes are presented and discussed at each Academic Board.

14 The supplementary paper drew attention to the recent establishment of a Collaborative Steering Group, which receives annual and periodic review reports, advising ASC and the Academic Board of any matters requiring discussion at a senior committee level. At faculty-level, collaborative groups and academic teams focus on the detail of collaborative provision and Faculty Academic Standards Committee (FASC) meeting minutes are presented and discussed at ASC. In the University's view, these arrangements represented 'an appropriate division of responsibility' between faculties and the University. The audit team observed, from its reading of minutes of FASC meetings, that these would not necessarily alert ASC to issues which might be pertinent to the collaboration with IOI. For example, the team noted that FASC had raised various matters relating to the operation of assessment boards as an issue and that these also applied to the collaboration with IOI, although this was not clear from the minutes. No explicit institutional response to the issue was evident.

15 The University Secretary maintains an authoritative record of the University's collaborative partnerships and the supplementary paper indicated that, at a senior executive level, external examiner reports and review reports are read by the Vice-Chancellor (VC) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) for information about the quality and standards of a collaborative partner. The Core Executive Team, which includes the VC and DVC, Director of Academic Audit and Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) Dean of Faculty, provides another forum to review available evidence. Reference was made in the paper to visits to IOI being made by the previous PVC Dean, the Director of Academic Audit, the Associate Dean (Quality) and the Faculty Registrar within the last three years.

16 The Commentary provided no information on TVU's strategic approach to overseas collaborative provision. However, the institutional audit report (November 2005) noted that the University's strategy for collaborative partnerships was based on a closure of international partnerships 'deemed to present an unacceptable level of risk'. A number of links had ended in recent years and the University was developing a policy and strategy for collaborative provision. The University's Collaborative Steering Group has discussed a University-wide strategy for collaboration. This had recently received Academic Board approval and was due to be considered by the University Conference in February 2007. In the audit team's view, the University would be advised to have a formally approved policy and strategy in place to inform further development of its collaborative provision, particularly where overseas links are being introduced. It would strongly encourage the University to put the strategy in place at the earliest opportunity.

Public information, publicity and promotional activity

17 The Agreement for the collaboration with IHL indicates that all publicity and promotional material must be submitted to TVU for approval, pre-publication. The Agreement also makes it clear that such material may not be published without TVU notification of approval. The Commentary stated that all layouts and text content relating to advertising and publicity material are sent to the TVU Malaysia Office and the Academic Liaison Manager (ALM) at TVU. Advertisements and publicity materials may be placed in either English or Cantonese and the audit team noted TVU Malaysia's responsibility for assigning 'designated agents in Hong Kong to scan the local press for copies of adverts' published in the press. No mention is made of website monitoring, but the team was told that the ALM was expected to review internet-based publicity materials periodically to ensure that these remained current and accurate.

Formal arrangements for establishing the link

Selecting and approving the partner institution

18 The BBA by open learning for delivery at IOI was validated in January 1998 'in line with the policies and procedures then in place at TVU'. At that time, the University's Centre for Quality Enhancement managed the approval process, which appeared to include consideration of the partner and the programme in a combined event. The purpose of that event was to establish whether Thames Open Institute Hong Kong (Thames Open Institute, a trademark used as a marketing tool), could act as another centre to run the BBA through open learning. TVU did not require due diligence checks as part of this approval event because IHL was already in partnership with TVU and due diligence considerations had been applied previously.

19 The audit team noted that the current approval arrangements adopted by TVU involve a two-stage process, including external membership in stage two, with a report being made to the ASC. It further noted, from TVU's institutional audit report of 2005, that the approval procedures now in place had been found to be rigorous and were considered to take due account of the relevant precepts of the Code of practice, published by QAA.

Programme approval

20 The approval panel established for the BBA through open learning at IOI, included one external member from Hong Kong and one external member from Singapore, and took account of organisational structure; strategic planning; resources; and teaching and administration considerations. The delivery of the BBA was approved subject to nine conditions and a number of recommendations. The conditions included a staff development programme before the start of the programme; the appointment of permanent teaching staff; and a joint development plan for the acquisition of books and journals. Approval was also conditional upon local recognition of the BBA pathway being granted by the Hong Kong Education Department. This came into effect from September 2000, at which point existing students at IOI were transferred to the new BBA pathway.

21 The 1998 approval report also stipulated, as a condition of approval, a requirement that students accepted onto the programme must have an appropriate level of English, namely, the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 5.5 or a recent Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) test, which includes a written English test, with a score of at least 550. IOI requires an IELTS score of 6.0 for all students studying on programmes that it delivers or supports. In addition, all students are interviewed to test their aural and oral competence in English. The report also specified that the teaching of all classes should be in the medium of English, noting that the use of Cantonese could disadvantage non-local students. IOI staff and students told the audit team that English is the principal language of instruction and that Cantonese is only used to clarify technical or specialist terms.

22 TVU requires an academic year to elapse between the launch of a new programme offer and its subsequent roll-out to partners. It is currently phasing in new modules based on the core content of the BA (Honours) Business Studies, as offered at TVU. This process was approved by the FASC and is scheduled for completion in summer 2007. The audit team noted that there had been some initial discussion of the implementation of the honours programme between the ALM and senior staff at IOI. Local tutors at IOI have yet to be fully involved in similar discussion, pending the implementation of the honours programme.

23 The audit team confirmed that the approval arrangements currently operated by the University require programme specifications and subject benchmark statements as part of the documentation for programme validation/approval, and that these arrangements take due account of the Code of practice, published by QAA.

Written agreements with the partner institution

24 The Agreement with IHL does not define the language of study but the Commentary indicated that instruction and assessment are conducted principally through the medium of English, supported by some seminar work in Cantonese. The team that conducted the first stage of the 2003 quinquennial review of the collaboration with IHL in South East Asia suggested that the original contract should be reviewed to bring it into alignment with the Code of practice, published by QAA and that any revised contract should be subject to annual review in line with recently introduced University requirements. Specifically, it was suggested that the review of the contract should take into account (i) the need to ensure adequate coverage of the financial and resource aspects of the arrangement; (ii) the relationship between the University, as the awarding body, and the partner; and (iii) aspects of the arrangement relating to individual centres and programmes. The review team also suggested that the University should move to a fixed contract period. In addition, it strongly recommended the need for a financial review to be undertaken before any second stage review of the collaboration to ensure that the partnership 'is and can remain viable'. It considered that the financial review, which should be led by the Faculty, would contribute to informing the production of a revised contract and faculty strategy.

25 The audit team welcomed TVU's recently developed standardised form of contract for all partnerships and learnt that a new agreement had been developed for the link with IOI. IHL was considering the new agreement at the time of the audit. The team confirmed that the proposed new agreement is aligned to the Code of practice, published by QAA.

Management and quality assurance of the link

Management of the link

26 Primary support for the collaboration is provided through the ALM (link tutor), who is accountable to the Director of Studies responsible for the programme area, and who communicates with Heads of Subject responsible for modules that make up the BBA. The Commentary indicated that, as a member of the Faculty Collaborative Partnership Liaison Committee (FCPLC), a sub-committee of the FASC, the ALM has a direct communication link with the Associate Dean (Quality), who chairs both committees and is a member of the Faculty Executive, ASC and the University-level Collaborative Committee. There is also dedicated administrative support for the link with the IOI, with an administrative reporting line to the Faculty Registrar, who is also a member of the Faculty Executive, FASC and the Collaborative Committee.

27 The main contact occurs between the designated ALM at TVU and the Academic Manager and the Programme Leader in Hong Kong, and through regular contact between the dedicated administrative support at TVU and the IOI. The IOI Programme Leader, while a permanent, full-time member of staff, is relatively new to this role. Although IOI staff have contact details for staff at TVU, staff at all levels at the IOI confirmed that, with the exception of contact with the administrator at TVU, almost all communication and contact is channelled through the ALM. From induction to graduation, liaison with students and staff, it is this individual who carries the weight of the relationship on behalf of TVU. The IOI staff and students spoke highly of the support from the ALM and the timeliness of responses to their requests for information or approval. Communications with the designated administrator at TVU were also said to be working well.

28 The audit team was told that the ALM has a pivotal role to play in ensuring the success of the collaboration. Discussions with staff at TVU suggested that there was little formal programme or senior management involvement in the management of the link, although the ALM and Heads of Subject are able to discuss any matters arising on an informal basis. The ALM responsibility is carried out by one individual, with no training or progression planning. Staff development at the IOI, referral of AP(E)L applications to TVU's AP(E)L Committee, and approval of IOI staff curricula vitae, in consultation with subject heads, fall within the remit of the ALM.

29 The University's own quinquennial review of the collaboration with IHL in South East Asia, suggested that subject-specialist staff should visit IOI to provide staff development for local tutors and the audit team learnt that two lecturers from TVU had visited the IOI in the recent past to help to rectify marking anomalies (see paragraph 51 below). Subsequent to the audit, TVU advised the team that, in the last 12 months, six University staff had visited the IOI, five being Faculty members and three being subject specialists.

30 Discussions with staff at TVU and the IOI suggested to the audit team that the ALM enjoys a high level of authority and, acknowledging that detailed monitoring and reporting of quality and standards has been devolved to faculties, the team explored the means by which the University exercised its oversight of the collaboration. The team was told that, although information was passed 'upwards' in a formal manner, communication was 'not well developed coming down'. The absence of any explicit institutional response to matters raised at faculty level suggested to the team that there would be merit in the University reviewing its arrangements to enable it to be confident and secure that it is receiving sufficient information and responding appropriately to matters requiring University-level consideration, given their potential impact on the management of quality and standards. At the same time, it may wish to consider reviewing the extent of authority delegated to the ALM with a view to ensuring that it is not placing undue reliance on this individual for the good standing of the collaborative partnership.

Monitoring and review

31 The Commentary stated that the reporting processes adopted by the University are comprehensive and include an annual collaborative provision report on the academic health of the provision, prepared by the partner, in collaboration with the ALM as necessary; and a report on the partnership prepared by the ALM, monitoring the overall progress of the partnership arrangement. Both reports are presented and discussed at FASC and the FCPLC with the University's Quality Audit Office (QAO) receiving copies of reports relating to collaborative provision. The audit team understood that the QAO provided an overview report of external examiner reports received, but was not aware of a similar overview report being produced with regard to annual monitoring reports of collaborative provision.

32 The BBA Hong Kong Procedures document, provided to the audit team, referred to TVU's requirement for partnership reports, consisting of 'reports subsequent to visits from TVU personnel, and annual monitoring reports as required by TVU' in addition to the ALM's report on the partnership. The team noted FCPLC discussion of the need for the University to demonstrate that it was taking appropriate steps to address disparities between first and second markers on the programme. However, consideration of FASC minutes indicated that the minutes of the FCPLC appeared to be simply noted. As such, in the team's view, significant matters requiring a response from the University might not always receive the attention they deserve by senior level committees within TVU.

33 Staff at the IOI confirmed that the reports to be made to TVU are discussed with the ALM, who then prepares draft reports which are forwarded to the IOI for final feedback. The audit team was told that discussions mainly involve the IOI Programme Leader, but there are also informal discussions and meetings with part-time tutors. The Programme Leader also provides an annual report as an adjunct to the joint report, referring to any matters arising and the IOI's responses to them, and including external examiners' short reports.

34 The audit team read an annual joint report, dated July 2005. The report reviewed the 2004 intended actions, summarised activities in 2005, and discussed changes in learning and assessment and curricular structure and content. External examiners' comments were summarised and there was a (second-hand) report on student evaluations. Progression and achievement data were discussed, as was staffing, resources, and student support and guidance. An action plan, drawn up for the following year, included the introduction of a compulsory academic English module for all new enrolments. This module, which was offered for one year as a series of workshops, was only accepted as optional by IOI as it found that it was not possible to enforce attendance given that the students were mature and had work and home responsibilities which meant that they could not always attend. The team was unable to track any formal approval process for this change.

35 The audit team asked TVU staff to indicate how a serious issue arising through annual monitoring might be brought to the attention of the ASC and was told that no reports would normally be made to ASC unless the issue 'threatened academic standards'. The example the team offered (consistent failure to achieve satisfactory standards in initial marking by IOI tutors) was not considered important enough to be discussed at ASC. In the team's view, this resulted in a missed opportunity to learn from the collective experience of ASC members, and could result in the University not being aware of issues which had the potential to compromise the quality and standards of its awards.

36 While noting that faculties of the University are required to produce an annual report on programme and programme cluster reviews, focusing on a faculty's role in managing quality and standards, the audit team considered that the ability of ASC and the Academic Board to oversee collaborative provision was dependent on the effectiveness of a faculty's upward reporting systems, in identifying matters to be considered at an institutional level. The team was not convinced that the annual monitoring process, as currently applied, enables the Academic Board and ASC to gain an effective and impartial annual overview of the health of the IOI programme. However, the team noted that the TVU Academic Board had decided, in 2006, to undertake an annual review of collaborative partnerships, organised by the faculty concerned, or the University Secretary, if a partnership operates across faculties. The review includes consideration of the management and strategic direction of a partnership; the assurance of quality and standards; and the contract. ASC receives a record of the review meeting. The team received a copy of the November 2006 report for the IOI link and considered that the report has the potential to provide ASC with at least a partial overview of the programme's health.

37 The audit team considered that the annual monitoring process at faculty level is appropriate but it found little evidence of central oversight and involvement. Although the team noted that the annual reporting process constituted one means by which the Academic Board and ASC would be alerted to matters requiring University-level consideration, it was not persuaded by claims that the University, centrally, was well placed to identify issues given its system of reporting 'by exception'. The team considered that it would be beneficial for the University to seek to improve the level and quality of information reported to its most senior committees in the interest of securing greater institutional oversight. To that end, the team formed the view that guidance on what constitutes an exception would be helpful. It suggested, for example, that guidance on reporting to senior level committees might usefully include recurring issues that are not resolved within the period leading up to the next annual, cluster or periodic review.

Periodic review

38 All partnerships undergo a comprehensive review on a five-year basis and the most recent periodic (quinquennial) review of the IOI partnership and the BBA by open learning, held in 2003, involved two stages. The first part of the review took place at TVU in April 2003 and included two external members from other UK higher education institutions. The review team indicated that the management and strategic nature of the issues identified at the first stage of the quinquennial review were such that they should be brought to the attention of the Faculty of Professional Studies and the Academic Board. The review team for the second stage of the review, conducted in September 2003, comprised three University members of staff. The quinquennial review of 2003 resulted in a range of recommendations and staff at the IOI confirmed that a number of these had been implemented, such as APEL mapping, and the circulation of external examiner reports. Discrepancies between first and second-marking continue to be the subject of University action.

39 The University's Quality Handbook does not explain how periodic review reports are processed through the University structure and it was unclear to the audit team how ASC's consideration of the review report had contributed to the sharing of good practice across the University. Subsequent to the audit, TVU indicated that the inclusion of an analysis of provision and recommendations for improvement in periodic review reports facilitated the sharing of practice. It confirmed that periodic review reports are submitted to the FASC and ASC, and the Collaborative Steering Group, if relevant.

Staffing and staff development

40 Although this is an open-learning programme, significant local support is provided in the form of workshops and seminars totalling between 12 and 18 hours per module, delivered by 15 to 20 local tutors employed by the IOI. Of these tutors, 80 per cent hold a master's level qualification and the IOI is required to provide TVU with current curricula vitae for all staff teaching on the programme. Tutor appointments are made locally and are confirmed following approval by the ALM, on TVU's behalf.

41 The audit team learnt that there was little direct contact between subject specialist staff at TVU and the IOI and tutors at the latter had asked for more direct contact with UK module leaders, rather than relying on contact between the IOI Programme Leader or Academic Administrator and the TVU ALM. The nature of this contact is predominantly by email because of the time difference between the two locations but may be by telephone if a matter requires urgent resolution. The IOI tutors whom the team met, stated that they had proposed suggested enhancements or updating of modules within the BBA portfolio, which had led to changes to modules and materials, suggesting that their views were appreciated and valued. As many of the IOI tutors are part-time, it was not possible to arrange staff exchanges and none of the IOI tutors who met the team had been involved in visits to TVU. The IOI staff, at all levels, indicated that they valued the support provided to them.

42 The IHL has its own processes for staff development and monitoring, which take the form of teaching observation and feedback/ performance review. The IOI staff who met the audit team indicated that there was no structured approach for the delivery of staff development by TVU staff at IOI, although the ALM might provide sessions for staff when making a scheduled visit. The audit team considered that more systematic input from subject tutors or other learning and teaching specialists from TVU could have helped to address the long-standing matter of disparities between first and second-markers, and would also have the added benefit of providing staff development to new tutors, as a matter of course.

43 The audit team recognised that the part-time nature of many of the tutors teaching on the programme presented particular challenges. While noting the appreciation of IOI staff for the role of the ALM in staff appointments and in ad hoc staff development, the team would encourage TVU to consider the value of widening the number of individuals involved in delivering the TVU input to the partnership, enabling subject specialists to develop closer links with colleagues in Hong Kong. In the team's view, the provision of more direct subject specialist to tutor contact and discussion should enable IOI staff who teach on the programme to develop a shared understanding with their counterparts in the UK and contribute to enhancing the quality of the student experience in Hong Kong.

Student admissions

44 There are four intakes per year and IOI's admission of students is subject to approval by TVU's Faculty of Professional Studies. The IOI uses TVU's standard admissions form, retains a copy and sends the original, together with certified copies of qualifications, and experience records to TVU for processing. An individual student file is set up, a student identification number allocated, and an official letter of acceptance issued. Admission letters are printed and signed at TVU before they are sent to the IOI, for forwarding to the students in Hong Kong.

45 The general entry requirements are the equivalent of those for students in the UK. The majority of prospective candidates are mature students (over 21) with relevant work experience and a wide range of academic qualifications. Mature students who do not hold the necessary formal qualifications are interviewed by the Programme Leader and the Academic Administrator, and if any English problems are diagnosed, they are offered enrolment on an English Language programme as a pre-requisite to the BBA. The IOI makes use of a detailed document listing permitted qualifications for admission to the BBA. Students presenting qualifications, which are not listed in this document, are interviewed and a recommendation made to the ALM, with subject specialist input, if required. The ALM confirms acceptance or declines admission of the prospective student, as appropriate.

46 The Commentary indicated that 'As in the UK on occasion it may be possible to give credit for prior learning where previous relevant qualifications have not been completed, but extensive and proven relevant learning at work can be evidenced' and borderline cases are always interviewed. Subsequently, however, TVU contradicted the Commentary and stated that APEL, on the basis of experience (and competence) is not applied to IOI applicants and no one enters the programme without appropriate academic qualifications. By applying APL and advanced standing, careful assessment and mapping of certificated learning takes place to determine that the prior learning is at the same level and volume as the BBA modules. Many students applying for the programme have gained qualifications and credits that are mapped toward modules of the BBA. The IOI's main recruitment is focused on students with Higher Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and Diplomas, with over 25 per cent having postgraduate qualifications.

47 The IOI submits a large number of application forms for Advanced Prior (Experiential) Learning (AP(E)L), and suggested outcomes to the Faculty APL/APEL Board at TVU for approval. The audit team noted the high levels of AP(E)L being awarded, with up to 90 per cent of one intake receiving such exemption. In addition, the team noted an example of students claiming, and being granted, exemption for up to 10 out of the 15 modules required for the award of the BBA, resulting in the possibility of completion of the degree in one academic year. The team received a table, running to several pages, of exemptions that were permitted and against which student applications were compared. In the team's view, this represented a significant amount of the students' learning experience. The University will wish to satisfy itself that it has sufficiently robust mechanisms in place to safeguard the security of its awards, particularly given the level of AP(E)L awarded to some students at the IOI. The team considered that there would be merit in the University reviewing the amount and extent of credit available through APEL, in the context of credit awarded for a range of Hong Kong qualifications against a UK award, and in an overseas environment where the greatly reduced duration of a programme of study might undermine the credibility of the provision.

48 The IOI's website does not specify an English language requirement, although the TVU site specifies a minimum of 5.5 IELTS. Staff at the IOI who met the audit team stated that students were expected to achieve a Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in English at level C, or IELTS 6.0, as required by IHL. Additional support in working with English is available and the team noted an intention to make an English module compulsory for all new students (see paragraph 34 above). Informatics, at the request of students, has made the English module optional rather than compulsory. The team considered that a formal review of the English language demands made on students by this programme would be beneficial, particularly given the open-learning nature of the provision, and the fact that approximately 20 per cent of students do not make use of the face-to-face support available.

49 The audit team saw copies of admissions documentation used by IOI staff and noted their understanding of TVU's admission process, including the requirement for the final approval of APEL by the Faculty APEL Board at TVU. Given the physical distance between the two institutions, the team would echo a suggestion made in the 2005 institutional audit report that TVU may wish to consider whether it has sufficient control over admissions, in their entirety.

Assurance of academic standards

Assessment of students

50 Coursework, assessment and examinations for the programme at the IOI are set by UK staff and are subject to the same controls as all other TVU programmes. TVU undertakes second-marking on a sampling basis and, if it is found that the first-marking is not satisfactory, a full second-marking takes place. The audit team noted long-standing problems in some areas concerning overgenerous first-marking, with limited success in resolving this matter, notwithstanding the fact that second-marker comments had been fed back to the relevant staff at the IOI. First-markers for assessments, which had been subject to mark changes, were required to sign to confirm that they had re-read second-marker comments before marking the next set of assessments.

51 The audit team noted that a recommendation for more visits to be undertaken by subject staff to the IOI, to help to rectify marking anomalies, has resulted in two visits by faculty staff in the recent past (see also paragraph 29 above). Discussion with staff at TVU suggested that the recommendation was progressed informally within the Faculty. The team noted the informal nature of the ALM's contact with the IOI and suggested that there might be merit in more formal input on occasion, given that staff in Hong Kong had stated that they had received little written feedback. The team would encourage the University to continue to monitor and seek solutions to address assessment-related matters. In the view of the team, closer liaison between subject specialists and IOI staff, and the possible introduction of some formal staff development, would be helpful in this context.

52 The Commentary stated that procedures for feedback on performance to students follows local procedures, with tutors providing extensive formative feedback to students, based on draft submissions during the study period, and relatively little, if any, on the final submission. Students at IOI confirmed that they could take coursework to tutors for advice but the work was not marked until the final submission. The University is working with tutors on a hybrid system which is better matched to that found in the UK. In the longer term, it intends to work with IOI tutors to provide local post-assessment feedback. Students receive feedback on their performance from both Hong Kong and UK-based staff. The audit team noted that the comments of both the first and second-markers were included in the feedback forms made available to the team.

53 Final assessments/examinations are taken in March and September and all work is initially marked by IOI academic tutors. Responsibility for assessment, teaching and learning issues, the analysis of data on recruitment, progression and achievement, module and course evaluation summaries, and student feedback reside with staff within the Faculty and with the IOI. While the ALM refers to these matters in the annual report prepared for consideration by the FCPLC and FASC, from its reading of documentation made available to the audit team and discussions with staff at TVU, the team found no evidence of routine reporting above faculty level, or a requirement for faculties to comment on particular partnerships to central committees of the University. As such, there was no clear line of communication that enabled senior managers to be formally notified of significant issues, for example, non-attendance at assessment boards; and the discrepancies between first and second-markers. The team found it difficult to see how the reporting mechanisms adopted by senior managers and University-level committees would provide TVU with the means to secure effective oversight of the standards and quality of the provision at the IOI.

54 The Commentary indicated that, because of the open-learning nature of the award and its six-year registration period, there is a tendency for the programme to carry a relatively high level of dormant students, thus distorting statistics. Students who have been dormant for more than 24 months are now contacted by the University to offer support, as appropriate, or to provide students with an opportunity to withdraw with appropriate academic credit. Student progress is monitored in line with the standard TVU three-stage process, involving module award boards (MABs); award boards (ABs); and student progress committees, which are held at TVU with academic representation from the IOI. The MABs and ABs replaced, respectively, previous similar assessment arrangements called subject assessment boards (SABs) and programme assessment boards (PABs). While these arrangements have been successful in ensuring a consistent quality approach, it is recognised that Hong Kong-based staff 'feel isolated from the process'.

55 The terms of reference of the MAB include attendance expectations for module leaders and, in the case of level 5 and level 6 modules, the external examiner, but no mention of quoracy or minimum attendance per academic session. In one instance of a MAB meeting attended by the Chair, UK Programme Leader and Senior Administrator, the audit team noted that each script in one module had been reduced by 10 marks at the request of the second-marker. On another occasion, these three individuals were joined by the External Examiner, but no second-markers were present. The ABs also include external examiners as members but, again, no minimum attendance requirement is specified.

56 The audit team noted that the academic representation from the IOI referred to in the Commentary was limited to an IOI staff member representative attending a SAB on one occasion, two years previously. The IOI's staff experience of TVU's regulations in practice was thus limited. From the information provided, it appeared to the team that, under the previous arrangements, external examiners normally only attended the PABs and that, generally, academic staff attendance at MABs and SABs was low. There were no indications of quoracy or required attendance in the Quality Handbook, but the average attendance was three to four including the Chair, Programme Leader, and an administrator, with no external examiner attending and apologies from most of the academic staff members. Although SAB minutes, and ALM and external examiner reports, indicate that the SAB received very detailed feedback on the assessments at the IOI from TVU subject staff, the team noted that very few of the latter ever attended the SAB.

57 Lack of attendance by academic staff leaves a small group, sometimes with no independent presence, making decisions at module/subject level that are then taken forward to award boards. Attendance at these board meetings does not appear to meet the University's own procedural expectations. As such, the audit team formed the view that TVU should conduct a review of its assessment board arrangements at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it can have confidence in the security of its awards and satisfy itself that the arrangements established are conducted in accordance with its own expectations and in line with sector norms.

58 The IOI is responsible for the arrangements governing examination sittings, using rooms licensed by the Hong Kong authorities, and holding copies of invigilators' reports. Copies of TVU regulations governing the conduct of examinations are provided to the IOI which is expected to comply with the regulations. The audit team was told that invigilators' reports would only be considered if an 'incident' occurred. Students suggested that they had brought at least two possible instances of examination cheating to the attention of the IOI. The team found no evidence of these matters being discussed at any assessment board, for which minutes were available. Subsequent to the audit, however, TVU indicated that cases of cheating in examinations had been reported and dealt with and documented in line with University procedures. The team would strongly encourage the University to consider whether closer scrutiny of the conduct of examinations and invigilation reports is required to safeguard the standard and integrity of its awards.

External examiners

59 External examiners for award-bearing programmes are proposed by subject groups via Faculty boards and appointed by the Academic Board (through the External Examiners Committee) and operate in line with the Code of practice. Minutes of assessment boards made available to the audit team drew attention to the need to fill subject external examiner vacancies. Subsequent to the audit, TVU indicated that vacancies were monitored through the External Examiners Committee and that there had never been a problem in finding and keeping programme external examiners for the IOI partnership.

60 Although the BBA is not offered as an open-learning programme at TVU, procedurally, the assessment arrangements are the same for TVU's UK and Hong Kong-based provision. The Commentary stated that the use of the same examiner to consider student work in both locations is consistent with TVU policy, and provides an impartial overview of student performance across all sites where a module or programme is offered. The audit team noted that there is a dedicated programme external examiner for the Hong Kong link, since there is no direct UK equivalent for the BBA programme.

61 External examiner reports are sent to the QAO, which distributes them to faculties. Responses to these reports are the responsibility of the Director of Studies who has overall responsibility for the programme area, and the relevant Heads of Subject who have modular responsibility. External examiner reports are also sent to the IOI for discussion involving the Hong Kong ALM, Programme Leader and academic tutors. A report is then prepared, which is fed back to the Academic Administrator for onward transmission to the ALM at TVU.

62 The audit team was told that external examiners are not required to attend all assessment boards, but they have the opportunity to attend or provide written reports. The team noted that the Academic Board receives an annual analysis of external examiner comments which separates out collaborative partnerships and identifies any areas of concern. Overall, the team found the external examining arrangements to be broadly effective.

Certificates and transcripts

63 The University produces certificates and transcripts. A transcript seen by the audit team listed those modules that are APL-based. Whilst the transcript referred to the location of the delivery of the programme, no reference is made within the Certificate to either the location or the transcript.

Quality of information and support for students

Student information and support

64 On enrolment, students are given a programme handbook giving details of complaints and appeals and relevant enhanced module study guides and/or workbooks. Materials provided to students are either sourced from TVU or reviewed, and approved, during the ALM's annual visit. Students at the IOI who met the audit team confirmed that they had received the handbook and indicated that they found the prospectus and other information from IOI programme consultants to be accurate. Students receive programme and module descriptors, in addition to information on the mode of delivery, and academic writing conventions.

65 Disciplinary procedures, such as academic impropriety, involve an initial academic investigatory interview that is conducted locally and, if there is a substantive case of alleged cheating or plagiarism, a full disciplinary hearing is scheduled with the ALM. The audit team noted that mitigating circumstances are considered at AB (previously PAB) meetings. Students who met the team confirmed that they were aware of the processes and procedures from reading the handbook they had been given.

66 The Commentary noted that the open-learning nature of the programme means 'that the experience of each student will be different'. It further noted that the provision of local workshops, delivered by local tutors using materials from TVU, contextualised by additional case-studies supplied by the tutors, provides support for students on the programme and helps 'to ensure a consistent experience beyond that normally found in open learning'. Workshops are teaching sessions but they are not compulsory. Approximately 80 per cent of students attend. The audit team was told that, while the principal language of delivery is English, some clarification of technical or specialist terms is provided in Cantonese. The administrative support available to students, described in some detail in the Commentary, appeared to be comprehensive and appropriate. Students who met the team confirmed that the support provided to them is appropriate and timely. The team welcomed the financial scholarship provision and other support provided for students who might not otherwise be able to engage with degree-level study noting, in particular, the case of a student with particular needs having access to an amanuensis, large-print documents and personal support from programme consultants.

67 The Commentary referred to enhanced module study guides and workbooks provided for students but indicated that students are expected to read widely. Copies of past examination papers are held at the IOI. The audit team found that the learning resources at the IOI were limited. The team viewed typical classroom and computing facilities and noted that, while the computing facilities were up to date, the resources were insufficient for a full student cohort. It acknowledged, however, that student usage of the facilities at the IOI would be difficult to predict, given the flexibility associated with the programme. While accepting that mature students, in employment, would not necessarily spend much of their time in the library at the IOI, the team considered the library resources to be very limited and it noted that students would welcome greater access to core text books. The Commentary stated that students have access to library facilities at local higher education providers in Hong Kong. Students who met the team indicated that they used local public libraries or purchased texts locally.

68 Formal student evaluation is conducted mainly through a questionnaire given at the end of each module, plus what TVU's 2003 quinquennial review report referred to as 'happy forms', allowing students to comment on issues of satisfaction, or otherwise. The team involved in the 2003 review had been of the opinion that, while useful, these methods were not sufficient, noting that the results of evaluation were not shared among staff or students. The TVU Faculty shared this concern and had responded by providing a standard TVU template to the IOI. Student evaluation forms and feedback are discussed at regular operational meetings held at the IOI. Students are also able to email senior staff at the IOI with any complaints.

69 The Commentary made no mention of any formal student representation with regard to this arrangement. The IOI students who met the audit team confirmed that there is no student representation on any staff-student consultative meetings but they do have direct access to the programme consultants and to the Programme Leader and Academic Administrator, and had used these mechanisms to register requests for improved facilities: these requests had been met. Students indicated that they could approach IOI programme consultants for assistance on any matter relating to the programme and found that this arrangement worked well. The local tutors were also said to be helpful in relation to academic matters and provided students with email and mobile telephone numbers. Students who met the team indicated that they were aware of several students who had met the ALM informally but, to their knowledge, this was the limit of their direct support from TVU.

70 The 2003 periodic review of the link suggested that there was a desire at the IOI for greater accessibility to the use of University facilities such as on-line assignments, digital library and information through a virtual learning environment which is a key part of TVU On-line, the University's online learning system. However, students whom the audit team met stated that IOI staff provided everything that they needed. Students confirmed that, as they were in employment, they would normally use their own computing facilities for research and assignment production.

71 The audit team noted that the students valued the academic and personal support provided by the IOI. However, it formed the view that TVU should consider how it might address the limited library resources available to students at the IOI, by providing access to the University's digital library, for example. While the team found little evidence of direct student input to the quality assurance of their programme of study, other than through the evaluation forms, it was aware that students at the IOI do provide informal feedback, which is taken seriously by the IOI. The team was not aware of students providing any direct input to TVU through formal meetings with TVU visiting academic staff. The team considered that the University should adopt a more proactive approach to student issues at the IOI and would endorse a report by the Director of Academic Audit to the ASC, making the same point and suggesting the establishment of a task group to review the matter.

Conclusions

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

• the IOI's high regard for the relationship with TVU and, in particular, with the ALM (paragraphs 27 and 41).

73 The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by the University:

• implementing a collaborative partnership strategy at University-level, including monitoring of adherence to the University's policies and procedures, matters to be addressed, and good practice arising from its collaborative activity (paragraphs 16, 30-32, 34-37)
• reviewing the extent of authority delegated to the ALM, with a view to ensuring that it is not placing undue reliance on this individual for the good standing of the collaborative partnership (paragraph 30)
• widening the number of individuals involved in delivering the TVU input to the partnership, enabling subject specialists to develop closer links with colleagues in Hong Kong (paragraph 43)
• reviewing the amount and extent of credit available through APEL, in the context of credit awarded for a range of Hong Kong qualifications against a UK award, and in an overseas environment where the greatly reduced duration of a programme of study might undermine the credibility of the provision (paragraph 47)
• reviewing its assessment board arrangements, with a particular focus on developing quoracy and minimum attendance requirements for assessment boards established for international collaboration purposes (paragraphs 53, 55-57)
• monitoring examination procedures more closely, ensuring that invigilators understand TVU's requirements (paragraph 58).

74 The Commentary made little reference to University-level monitoring and reporting processes, and a supplementary paper was provided subsequently to enable the audit team to place the Commentary in a broader institutional context. The University currently monitors the quality and standards of its awards 'by exception'. The team was not persuaded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the reporting system is working sufficiently well to inform senior and central-level consideration of issues that could have adverse consequences for the academic standard of the award, enabling action to follow in a timely manner. In coming to this view, the team noted that second-marking, for example, is a recurring issue of long-standing. The team formed the view that, in light of its findings, TVU should consider whether it is confident that sufficient safeguards are in place to enable it to exercise an appropriate level of oversight of the quality and standard of awards made in the University's name. In the view of the team, confidence in the University's management of the partnership and assurance of the standard of the award can be confirmed once action is taken to address matters identified in the report.

75 The audit team considered that the University should review whether the devolved structures it operates are sufficiently mature, and its reporting processes suitably robust, to enable it to exercise effective institutional oversight of academic quality and standards. The review should encompass consideration of the balance between institutional oversight and faculty processes; the way in which the University satisfies itself that its policies and procedures are being implemented as intended; the extent to which any undue reliance on key individuals might be mitigated; and the operation of assessment boards, such that the University can be confident in the integrity of the award decisions made in its name.

Appendix A: Update on the partnership since the audit provided by Thames Valley University

The University is currently undergoing a major re-structuring exercise aimed at bringing greater coherence and consistency to its faculties, campuses and activities. Work on the creation of this 'common framework' has already begun. In practice it means having the University's activities operating under a series of single, unifying entities, including: Quality Assurance and Enhancement and Academic Planning. The framework will also drive a more transparent, accountable and less burdensome committee structure. It is envisaged that this 'common framework' will be in place before the start of the 2008-09 academic year.

A significant part of this framework will be the appointment of a new Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) in March 2008. The post-holder will have overall responsibility for Quality Assurance and Enhancement across the institution working closely with a new and enlarged Quality Assurance Unit. Each faculty will also have a designated high level senior Director with responsibility for Quality and Academic Affairs in the faculty including collaborative partnerships (both regional, national and international). The Directors of Quality in each faculty will have responsibility for ensuring standards and enhancement within faculties and will link to programme leaders in the newly created academic schools. Each faculty will have an Academic Standards Committee chaired by the Director which will have direct links to the university wide Academic Standards Committee. This Committee reports directly to Academic Board. The Academic Standards Committee will monitor the management of all our partnerships ensuring there is a clear line of communication between programmes, programme leaders, Academic Liaison Managers, Heads of School, and Directors.

At the time of the audit visit the University was in the process of consulting on a distinctive collaborative strategy, overseen by a Collaborative Steering Group, reporting into Academic Standards Committee. The results of that consultation are as follows.

The University has a collaborative policy and strategy. The next stage is an institutional wide review of all our current collaborative provision (by Easter 2008).

The Collaborative Steering Group is to be established as a sub-committee of Academic Standards Committee with a brief to overview strategy and monitor the evidence arising from partnership and collaborative activity.

Each faculty based Director of Quality Assurance and Academic Affairs will be a member of the Collaborative Steering Committee.

Faculty collaborative groups (including academic link tutors) will now meet at least once a semester and report into Faculty Academic Standards Committees.

A new Collaborative Handbook has been developed, defining University processes and protocols, with strengthened systems for due diligence, risk analysis, financial costing and contracting, typologies of collaboration and their implications for quality assurance, responsibilities of academic liaison managers, etc.

The first University Annual Collaborative Report was presented to Academic Standards Committee in November 2007, providing an overview of issues arising from the evidence base and recommending improvements to practice.

We believe the above measures are a sufficient response to the audit report's comments about strategy, balance between central and faculty processes, and information available to senior committees.

Appendix B: Summary of current student numbers

Cohort	Degree	Continuing	Withdrawn	Grand Total
01/03/2003	12	2		14
01/06/2003	11	11	2	24
01/09/2003	13	13	1	27
01/12/2003	10	8	2	20
01/03/2004	10	9	3	22
01/06/2004	7	9	3	19
01/09/2004	7	10	1	18
01/12/2004	2	13		15
01/03/2005	6	2		8
01/06/2005	12	8		20
01/09/2005	7	31		38
01/12/2005	5	12		17
01/03/2006		37		37
01/06/2006		39	1	40
01/09/2006		69		69
01/12/2006		45		45
01/03/2007		47		47
01/06/2007		42		42
Grand Total	102	407	13	522

ISBN 978 1 84482 777 0