Introduction
1. This is a report of an audit carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAAHE) of the quality assurance arrangements for a partnership
between Sheffield Hallam University and the Management Consultancy Group, Bahrain
(MCG) in respect of an MBA (including the awards of Postgraduate Certificate
and Postgraduate Diploma) offered by distance learning. The Agency is grateful
to the University and MCG for their assistance and co-operation with the audit
team.
2. This audit of Sheffield Hallam University formed part of a series of six audits undertaken in October 1997. These audits covered a range of overseas collaborative partnerships which British higher education institutions (HEIs) have established in the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. In every case, visits were made to both the UK HEI and the partner in the Arabian Gulf.
3. The quality assurance arrangements of the University were the subject of an audit in May 1993. A separate audit of the University’s collaborative provision took place in May 1994 leading to a report published by the Higher Education Quality Council in November 1994.
4. Abbreviations used in this report
In this report the following abbreviations are used:
AQR Annual Quality Review
AQSC Academic Quality and Standards Committee
CMS Computing and Management Sciences
HEQC Higher Education Quality Council
MBA Master of Business Administration
MCG Management Consultancy Group, Bahrain
QAAHE Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
The audit process
5. Prior to its visit to Bahrain, the audit team received briefing
documentation from the University in two parts: first, a description of
overall institutional policies and procedures in respect of overseas provision
and, secondly, material which detailed the specific partnership with MCG
in respect of the MBA by distance learning. In both cases, a helpful narrative
overview was supplemented by other existing documents. Following discussion
of these papers, a limited amount of additional documentation was sought
and received from the University.
6. Members of the audit team visited the University for a preliminary meeting on 15 September 1997 and met a range of staff including the Chair of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC), the Academic Registrar, the Deputy Academic Registrar, the Director of the School of Computing and Management Sciences (CMS) and its Head of Postgraduate Studies, and a number of other academic staff associated with the MBA programme. A second visit was made to the University on 10 November 1997 when the QAAHE Assistant Director met eight members of the University, including the Chair of AQSC and the Deputy Academic Registrar.
7. The audit team visited MCG in Bahrain on 13 October 1997 and held discussions with members of the MCG management team, a large group of locally-based students at various stages in the MBA programme, and a number of local tutors. The team also held discussions with representatives of the corporate clients whose employees are registered for the MBA.
8. The audit team comprised Professor J Cowan, Dr P A J Easy and Professor J Rear, auditors, and Dr K Clarke, audit secretary. Dr D S Law, QAAHE Assistant Director, accompanied the team and co-ordinated the audit for the QAAHE.
The university context for collaborative provision
9. As part of the International Strategy within its overall Strategic
Plan, the University aims to develop its ‘international profile
through curriculum and partnership arrangements’including ‘a
range of collaborative links between [itself] and partners overseas for
both teaching and research purposes’.
10. The University has developed a full range of outreach partnership activities including the franchising of its own programmes to other institutions, the validation of programmes in other institutions for awards of the University, and the accreditation of programmes offered by other providers for credit towards University awards. The distance learning MBA programme offered in conjunction with MCG does not fit easily into such standard categories. Whilst the distance learning study units are also used on MBA and MSc courses within the University, the packaging of the programme differs slightly from similar programmes in the UK. The programme is also currently offered through centres in Malaysia and Jersey, with some local variations.
11. The programme is a distance learning programme with some local tutor support and, in MCG, uses an agency for logistical and marketing purposes. These arrangements are consonant with the University’s Academic Development Plan which envisages a ‘main area of growth’as ‘specialised distance learning postgraduate provision...[and]...the further diversification of niche market MBAs’.
12. Central University support for outreach and partnership activity is provided through the Quality Office, a sub-section of the Registry, reporting to the Deputy Academic Registrar. The Quality Office has absorbed the responsibilities formerly held by a separate Outreach Office. These include providing officer support for validation and review events, giving advice to the Deputy Principal on the suitability of proposed partner organisations, and the preparation of an annual Outreach Quality Review.
13. A more recent and important step in the development of the University’s collaborative and partnership activities was the receipt by AQSC in December 1996 of a detailed paper, prepared by the then Outreach Office, which described and analysed procedures for approving and monitoring collaborative provision and made a number of recommendations for enhancing those procedures. It was followed in February 1997 by a supplementary paper focused on international collaborative provision in the light of the publication of the HEQC’s revised Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision and the outcomes of the initial round of overseas partnership audits. Some of the recommendations made in these papers have since been implemented by the University whilst others are currently under discussion by an AQSC sub-group established to review the quality assurance arrangements of academic provision overseas. Together, the two papers were referred to by the University as ‘guiding policy’and their level of detail, critical evaluation and subsequent recommendations are worthy of commendation.
The background to the partnership
14. The partnership between the University and MCG began in 1993,
originally in respect of an MSc in Information Technology and Management
offered through the School of Computing and Management Sciences (CMS).
In 1995, three schools of the University - the School of CMS, the School
of Financial Studies and Law, and the Sheffield Business School - developed
a joint MBA which replaced the original MSc. The School of CMS retained
management and quality assurance responsibilities for the MBA as provided
through the Bahrain centre. At the time of the audit, however, the MBA
programme was in the process of being transferred to a restructured Sheffield
Business School which will have particular responsibilities for taught
postgraduate awards.
15. At the time of the audit, overall responsibility for the management of the MBA programme rested with the Head of Postgraduate Studies in the School of CMS. A designated Route Leader from the School is responsible for the MBA as offered through the Bahrain centre and is assisted by academic co-ordinators appointed from the other two participating schools. Liaison with MCG is chiefly through the Route Leader although the Head of Postgraduate Studies is involved in decisions related to financing, resources, marketing and general strategy.
16. The MBA programme has three award stages: a generic Postgraduate Certificate in Business Administration; a Postgraduate Diploma which has routes in Information Technology Management, Finance, Management Consultancy, and General Management; and the MBA which also provides this range of separate routes. Whilst there are four award titles available, the programme is known generally by the University as the International MBA. At all levels, the programme comprises distance learning units designed to be free-standing. At the end of the Certificate and Diploma stages, students must also attend a week-long residential school during which University staff deliver (and then assess by examination) one unit for the particular staged award. At the time of the audit, five cohorts had been recruited to the MBA amounting to some 130 students.
17. MCG is a private organisation founded in 1978 which, in addition to its association with the University, is engaged in preparing students for a range of other professional and academic qualifications. Since the University retains all academic control for the MBA programme, it refers to MCG as an agent rather than as a partner. On several occasions, the University emphasised this distinction to the audit team since a number of the University’s quality assurance systems and arrangements for outreach programmes are dependent on the existence of an academic partner organisation with responsibility, to a greater or lesser extent, for academic processes. In this case, however, the University is clear that MCG fulfils the role of an agent performing certain non-academic functions governed by a business contract.
18. The initial contact with MCG was made personally by the Head of the School of CMS who also undertook some checks with Government agencies in Bahrain and the British Council before any agreement was signed. At that time, the University, above the level of the school, was not involved in the process of selection and approval of such agents. The audit team learnt that current procedures require the approval of all new collaborative ventures by the Deputy Principal on advice from the Quality Office which co-ordinates checks on proposed partners. The team would commend these revised arrangements as an acknowledgement of the University’s overall responsibility for the standards of awards it makes.
19. The University has developed a range of agreements to cover most models of international collaboration. However, in the case of the MBA, where the host University school has full control of the academic programme and employs an agent for non-academic support, it is the responsibility of the school to agree a satisfactory contract. The relationship with MCG is regulated by a brief Memorandum of Understanding which invests the University with ‘total academic control of all programmes’and describes MCG’s responsibilities in terms of marketing and logistical support. It is, in the view of the audit team, essentially a business agreement between the School of CMS and MCG and the team confirmed that there had been no University scrutiny of the Memorandum other than possibly the receipt of some financial advice from central University sources.
20. The latest version of the Memorandum was signed in March 1996 (almost a year after the admission of the first MBA cohort) and, in its brevity, appears not to cover some areas of respective responsibility in detail. For example, the Memorandum assigns ‘strategic marketing’to MCG but does not set out clearly the University’s control of other aspects of publicity. Given the substantial period covered by the agreement (20 years with opportunities for review and termination at three-year intervals), the University may wish to consider the advisability of extending its range of model agreements, and its level of central scrutiny, to cover arrangements with agents of this kind in a more precise manner.
Initial validation and approval processes
21. The MBA programme currently being offered through the Bahrain
centre was validated in March 1995. Under the University’s processes
in place at that time, and following the appropriate planning stages, the
programme was scrutinised by a panel appointed by the AQSC. The panel membership
was broad and included internal staff members, external peer academics
and a representative from the business sector. The panel was also well
qualified in terms of knowledge of distance learning methods and programmes.
22. A detailed report of the event indicates that the programme was subjected to thorough scrutiny with the panel recommending approval subject to a number of conditions related to quality assurance mechanisms, assessment issues, and the production of an operational handbook. The audit team noted that these conditions had been met in the manner and to the deadlines indicated by the validation panel. The University is to be commended for a thorough validation process.
23. An important feature of the initial validation was the panel’s concern that the geographical coverage of the MBA should not be extended too rapidly and without the benefit of a thorough evaluation and review of its early development phase. The panel thus agreed to recommend approval for delivery in Bahrain and up to two other centres, following which a critical review would be necessary before further expansion occurred. In particular, it was felt that such a critical review should address the effectiveness of both the management and quality assurance arrangements for the programmes.
24. At the time of the audit, the MBA was being offered through centres in Malaysia and Jersey as well as Bahrain, thus fulfilling the terms of the original approval. The audit team heard that initial plans for its further development in centres in India and Hong Kong were dependent on the critical review suggested by the original validation panel. This review was to be organised through the new host school for the MBA, the Sheffield Business School.
25. However, the audit team also noted in the minutes of a meeting of the
MBA management team held in May 1997 that plans for extending the programme
to India and Hong Kong appeared to be advancing rapidly and that no mention
had been made of any imminent critical review. The University’s own
overview statement prepared for the audit names the member of staff with
responsibility for the MBA in India and reports plans to launch the programme
in Hong Kong. This may well be an example of the ‘creative tension
between entrepreneurial development and rigorous checking’discussed
as part of the paper on the University’s procedures for approving
and monitoring collaborative provision received by AQSC in December 1996
(see above, paragraph 13). Nevertheless, the team would advise the University
to endorse the advice of the original expert validation panel and to ensure
that such a review does take place as recommended before the extension
of the programme to new locations.
Arrangements for programme monitoring and review
26. Annual Quality Review (AQR) is at the centre of the University’s
arrangements for the quality assurance of all academic programmes. This
process begins at programme level with preparation of annual reports and
action plans; these are scrutinised at school level and are used in the
preparation of the school’s own composite annual quality review.
These reviews in turn are passed to AQSC and, in a synoptic form, to Academic
Board. In August 1995, AQSC published a detailed ‘user guide’for
the annual quality review of all types of outreach programmes. The audit
team was informed that whilst the general principles of the guide, and
a number of its detailed recommendations, were relevant to the MBA as a
distance learning programme, some provisions were not wholly applicable
particularly where these related to the quality assurance responsibilities
of academic partners.
27. At programme level, the information base for AQR is provided by a number of sources including external examiners’reports, student evaluation, staff reports (including, for this MBA, those prepared by local tutors) and statistical indicators. It is the intention that such sources be evaluated and analysed in order to prepare an annual report and/or an action plan (the schools have discretion as to whether one or both of these documents is produced for individual programmes). Where an action plan only is produced, the guide recommends that it should ‘focus sharply on the academic quality of the programme and the quality of the student experience, and provide evidence of an effective monitoring process’.
28. The audit team was able to consider the action plans for the MBA programme for 1995 and 1996. Understandably, the earliest action plan is concerned chiefly with the management and implementation of the new programme. However, the later action plan, whilst giving some indication of monitoring activity, still appears to be largely concerned with management issues. The team recognises that it did not have before it the richness of material which would have been available to the programme team as it discussed the compilation of these action plans. As outcomes, however, the action plans themselves appear disappointingly meagre and it is difficult to see them as having made a substantial contribution to the School of CMS as it considered the writing of its own overall AQR reports.
29. The guide for the annual quality review of outreach programmes also makes recommendations on the areas which should be covered in a school annual quality review. These are extensive and are listed under the four main headings of ‘Scope’, ‘Process’, ‘Conclusions/Actions’and ‘Effectiveness’. If fully implemented, such guidelines would provide a comprehensive and detailed record of the quality assurance and monitoring of all outreach activities. Prior to the publication of these guidelines, the School of CMS’s annual quality review for 1994-95 covered the launch of the new MBA programme together with an appendix which provided a useful - if general - list of the quality assurance arrangements for the new programme. However, the School’s report for 1995-96 is almost silent on outreach activities in general and the MBA in particular and thus bears little relation to the guidelines published by AQSC in August 1995.
30. The University’s AQR system has been in place and working effectively for some years. However, in the light of the monitoring at programme and school level of the MBA programme, the audit team would endorse one of the recommendations of the December 1996 AQSC paper which called for ‘an enhanced AQR process for overseas programmes’. A major review of the AQR system was also conducted earlier in the year: it too suggested a strengthening of the process as it relates to outreach activities.
31. An additional feature of the monitoring and review systems described above is the Outreach Annual Quality Review prepared by the Quality Office for AQSC. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the effectiveness of quality assurance arrangements for all outreach and collaborative provision and to highlight any common issues which may have arisen. Amongst its sources are programme level reports, external examiner reports and the annual quality reviews prepared by schools.
32. The Outreach AQR scrutinised by the audit team was published in 1997 and covered the academic year 1995-96. In addition to a perceptive analysis of its sources, the report included an action plan and an updating of action plans from previous years. The team noted that not all schools had submitted AQR reports to assist in the compilation of this overview and that improving this situation was recorded as part of the action plan for the coming year. On the evidence of the papers it considered, the team would endorse the value of the Outreach AQR and would urge the University to ensure that all schools provide appropriate and adequate material to ensure that its can continue to make a contribution to the quality assurance of outreach activity.
Arrangements for the assessment of students
33. Information concerning the assessment of students is contained
in an MBA student handbook produced by the University. This includes a
statement on the assessment philosophy of the programme, the formal assessment
regulations, and a more informal section which lays out clearly the logistics
of submitting assignments and the penalties for late submission.
34. At the programme level, the assessment process is managed by staff of the University. Each distance learning unit contains an assignment pack which gives details of the assessment task and normally - but not in all cases seen by the audit team - the criteria by which the assessment will be marked. It is the responsibility of MCG to collect assignments, record their receipt, and forward them to the University for marking. Marked assessments and feedback sheets are then returned to students via MCG.
35. In discussion with students, the audit team heard that problems had been experienced with the timely return of assessed work (a period of two months being not untypical). This issue had also been identified by a senior member of the School’s staff in a report following a recent visit to Bahrain. A recently published handbook for local tutors (which is discussed in more detail in paragraph 52 below) indicates that the School’s service-level target in this respect is three working weeks. Clearly, the School will need to improve the current speed of return if this target is to be met and the University may wish to consider the advisability of reviewing the reasons underlying the current situation.
36. The programme has a board of examiners, appointed according to standard University procedures, which includes three external examiners who cover the academic spread of the programme. All assessed material is made available to the external examiners, although the audit team heard that they normally sampled across the range of student performance. At the time of the audit, only a limited number of external examiners’reports were available: these generally expressed satisfaction with assessment practices and the academic standards achieved by students.
37. In discussions with University staff, it was evident to the audit team that the question of student assessment and some of the potential related problems which might arise with distance learning programmes had been carefully considered by the School of CMS. Such consideration has led to the introduction of a number of particular features of the assessment process. It is, for example, a standing policy that, where possible, students should address coursework assessment tasks through reference to their own employing organisation and the team noted that some assignment packs were explicit in this requirement. Furthermore, the project and dissertation which complete the MBA programme are normally organisation-based.
38. In its earlier award stages, the MBA programme includes two compulsory residential periods in Bahrain during which one unit is delivered intensively and then assessed by examination. These residential units are taught chiefly by staff of the University with some additional contributions from industrial and commercial consultants often drawn from companies located in the Gulf region. The assessment is by unseen examination where the examination papers are set and moderated by the University according to its normal practices. The papers are taken to Bahrain by those University tutors who are to deliver the residential unit; these tutors also invigilate the formal examinations.
39. It is the aim of staff associated with the MBA programme that assessment practices and standards should be comparable with similar postgraduate programmes offered within the University. In its consideration of assignment packs, the reports of external examiners, and the minutes of boards of examiners (where it noted that an early example of suspected plagiarism had been quickly identified and dealt with), the audit team was able to endorse this sense of staff confidence in the assessment process.
Commentary on the students experience
40. As an induction to the MBA programme, the University provides
a non-assessed residential period in Bahrain which comprises an introduction
to the course and advice on other issues such as returning to study and
assessment. Students who are unable to attend receive a detailed pack of
information. Following this, the major source of written information is
the MBA Handbook which provides details of the course structure, unit outlines,
assessment regulations and guidance and information on the management of
the programme. The Handbook does not contain full details of the University’s
regulations on appeals or the consequences of plagiarism and the general
use of unfair means. For these, the student is referred to the ‘University’s
regulations in force at that time’. The audit team was able to confirm
that these regulations, contained in a more general postgraduate handbook,
are also issued to students. In general, students expressed satisfaction
with the level and nature of the information which was provided for them
by the University and MCG.
41. Tutor support to students for the distance learning elements of the programme is organised at unit level. Each distance learning unit is assigned a University tutor and a local tutor. The role of the University tutor is the academic management of the assigned unit, including being available to students through telephone, fax or e-mail, and facilitating the assessment process. Local tutors were introduced for the MBA in Bahrain at the instigation of MCG. Their role is to act as an initial source of information for student queries, to provide support to students in the location of learning resources, and to assist in the clarification of assessment tasks. They are not allowed by the University to provide additional teaching or to assume any more specific role in the assessment process.
42. The audit team noted that the role of the local tutor had evolved during the time in which the MBA had been offered in partnership with MCG. Initially, at a period when most of the registered students were resident in Bahrain, weekly meetings with local tutors had been the norm. However, later cohorts recruited for the programme have included students from other Gulf countries as well as from Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. In order to promote equity of treatment, the local tutor system was restricted to its current format where regular telephone or fax contacts are available to supplement face-to-face meetings. In theory, each student is contacted on three occasions during the course of any one unit as well as having the opportunity to address queries to local tutors on an ad hoc basis.
43. It is the University’s position that each unit in the MBA programme is supported by a local tutor. Whilst this appeared to be the case for the mainstream, compulsory units at the certificate and diploma stages, the audit team noted from student comment that not all optional units seemed to be thus supported. The number and range of optional units (over 20 are advertised as available across the full MBA programme) indicates that very small numbers of students may be registered for some of them thus involving the University in a large-scale and costly operation if it were to maintain the same standard of provision in all units. Nevertheless, the University may wish to review the consistency of practice in the appointment of local tutors to all units which are currently offered to ensure that students are not disadvantaged as a result of their optional choices.
44. In respect of the direct methods of communication between course members and programme providers, the audit team heard from students that both the staff of MCG and local tutors provided a rapid and highly satisfactory service. However, in the experience of students, the quality of communication between course members and staff of the University, whether by phone, fax or e-mail, was more variable, ranging from helpful and frequent advice to a lack of any response on some issues. The University may wish to review its practice in this respect especially in the light of the service-level agreements contained in the Tutor Handbook where four working days has been set as a target for response.
45. Opportunities for students to evaluate their programme of study are provided chiefly through the residential units (see above, paragraphs 16 and 38) where both informal feedback through discussion with University tutors and the use of more formal questionnaires are employed. In addition, the audit team heard that students frequently use both MCG staff and local tutors as a channel of communication. The team was also told by the University that students may evaluate the units which they are taking by completing a Unit Review form, in essence a qualitative questionnaire, on each occasion that they submit an assessed piece of work. Examples of such Unit Review forms were supplied to the team as part of the documentation for the audit. The team was surprised to learn that none of the students whom it met (a group in excess of 20 with representatives from each of the current five cohorts recruited for the programme) had any knowledge of this Unit Review mechanism.
46. During their visits to Bahrain, University staff organise student feedback on the units delivered during the residential periods and they facilitate discussion meetings with students and tutors about the programme. It appeared to the audit team that such arrangements represented a somewhat limited version of the University’s normal practices in respect of this aspect of its quality assurance procedures and the team would advise that the Unit Review system should be quickly implemented for students registered through the Bahrain centre.
47. In discussion with students, the audit team was also made aware of their concern that the University’s position on the certification of intermediate awards had changed. In the early stages of providing the programme through the Bahrain centre, students completing the Postgraduate Certificate had been issued with a University award certificate regardless of whether they were progressing to the Diploma or MBA itself. The University had reviewed its regulations and decided that, from the 1996-97 session, the issuing of such certificates to continuing students would be discontinued. The team learnt, after its meetings in Bahrain, that full implementation had been deferred and that for 1997 the issuing of interim award certificates had been agreed. Such certificates would not be produced in future years.
48. In general, and apart from the particular issues raised in the preceding paragraphs of this section, students expressed satisfaction with their experience of the MBA programme. In certain respects, for example the provision of residential units, they were particularly appreciative of the University’s arrangements. The audit team also learnt that new initiatives were being introduced to improve their experience. These include the introduction of a networking system specifically designed to encourage contact between students for the exchange of ideas and general peer support.
Staffing and staff development
49. Since the University emphasises the importance of local tutors
for the success of the programme, the audit team paid particular attention
to all aspects of their selection, induction and general role. The team
was told that the University controlled the appointment of local tutors
who were always interviewed by a senior member of staff of the School of
CMS. Whilst there was evidence of such selection processes, the team found
that an interview by the University was not conducted in every case and
that approval could be given on the basis of sight of a curriculum vitae.
50. Additionally, in papers supplied by the University, the audit team noted that, following selection, local tutors are ‘offered work by MCG’; most of the local tutors met by the team also understood that MCG was their employer. However, the team learnt that MCG’s role was limited to the operation of a University budget through which payments to tutors were made. This apparent confusion is compounded by the absence of any letter of appointment or formal contract regulating the employment of local tutors. In the view of the team, such tutors appeared to be no different from those who might normally be employed by the University in a part-time capacity and would advise that their appointment and contractual position be formalised by the institution.
51. In terms of induction and other forms of staff development, local tutors are invited to attend a familiarisation session run by University staff introducing them to the programme structure, the unit material, staff contacts and more general information about the University. It was not clear to the audit team whether these sessions were compulsory or how often they occurred. Some of the local tutors whom the team met indicated that they had not attended such an induction and had relied on information supplied by MCG. There did not appear to be any other formal staff development activities for local tutors, nor was there systematic monitoring of the local tutor system by the University, although some limited contact with University staff is made on the occasion of the residential units.
52. As part of the audit documentation, the audit team was supplied with a copy of a Tutor Handbook, the purpose of which is to set out with some clarity the respective roles of University tutors, local tutors and MCG. This Handbook had originally been prepared by MCG and submitted to the School for approval. At the time of the audit, the Handbook, as revised by the School, had not been issued to local tutors, although those met by the team were familiar with its contents, albeit through the original and unrevised MCG version. Given the importance which the School attaches to the role of the local tutor, the team was surprised that such a handbook had been prepared as an MCG initiative. However, the level and nature of the information which it contains is evidently important and the team would advise that an approved handbook be formally issued by the University.
53. As part of their duties, local tutors are required to report on the progress of students and are also given the opportunity to evaluate the success of each unit on completion. Tutors met by the audit team confirmed that they maintained a log of their contacts with students but did not, in practice, submit this potentially useful information to the University. However, the team was able to consider a selection of evaluation reports compiled by local tutors and submitted to the University. The reports confirmed a focus on student learning support and on the local reception of individual units. In some cases, they included valuable feedback to the University, in particular highlighting areas where cultural differences might affect unit content. This feature of the local tutor system is designed to provide continual and informed feedback on the programme and the team would commend it as good practice.
54. Despite the reservations expressed above, it was clear to the audit team that local tutors provided a service which was generally appreciated by students. If, on occasion, students expressed frustration at the limitations which the University placed on local tutors (for example, their role in the assessment process was very restricted), this served to confirm to the team that local tutors clearly understood the division of responsibilities between themselves and University tutors and were thus adhering carefully to the duties assigned to them. The team also learnt that a change of title from ‘tutor’to ‘mentor’was to be implemented which, in the team’s opinion, would more accurately describe their function and role.
Publicity and promotional materials
55. The audit team was told by University staff that, whilst marketing
advice was taken from MCG, responsibility for publicity and the accuracy
of promotional material rested with the School of CMS. The team was able
to confirm that, whilst MCG prepared local promotional material, final
approval for its distribution was given by the School. There is no requirement
for University involvement in this area above the level of the School,
although all promotional material is required to be set within the University’s
corporate guidelines.
56. The audit team saw a number of examples of publicity for the MBA. These included an attractive brochure, a more detailed insert prepared by MCG for that brochure, and a number of advertisements for the programme placed in the local press in Bahrain and elsewhere in the Gulf region. In each case, the promotional material was informative, succinct and accurate. In a context where care over promotional material is of the greatest importance, the team would commend this aspect of the partnership between the University and MCG.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
57. The partnership between the University and MCG in Bahrain has
been soundly established. The MBA programme was the subject of careful
validation and approval procedures and, in operation, is generally providing
an experience for its registered students which is meeting University objectives.
In respect of the administration of the programme, the evident efficient
communication between the two partners is important in ensuring that it
is managed to a high standard. A particular feature of the link is the
careful control over the promotion of the MBA in Bahrain which can be commended
as a model of good practice.
58. There remains room, however, for improvement in some aspects of provision, such as the opportunities afforded for student evaluation and the regularising of the position of local tutors. It would also enhance the programme if the University’s own stated requirements concerning the timely turnaround of assessments and student contact with tutors at the University were met.
59. In terms of the general development of the University’s distance learning programmes, the work of the Outreach Office and its successor, the Quality Office, has created a sound institutional context in which the quality assurance of such provision can be maintained and enhanced. More specifically, the MBA programme clearly benefits from the active approach of staff at MCG who are not only efficiently managing the programme in Bahrain but are also contributing significantly to its development. As such, there is clearly the potential for even further enhancement of this link to the benefit of both partners and to the students for whom they provide
Top