Introduction
1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a UK organisation which aims to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and the funders of higher education. One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and some of their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2001, QAA audited selected collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Greece. The purpose of the audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and quality of education in their partnerships with institutions in Greece.
The process of audit of overseas collaborative arrangements
2 In planning these audits of overseas collaborative provision, QAA invited all UK institutions to provide a list of their collaborative links with Greek partners. On the basis of the information provided on the range and scale of the links, it selected four UK institutions for audit. Each of the selected institutions provided for QAA a Commentary describing the way the link operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. 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. It was also invited to make reference to the ways in which its arrangements adhered to QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999) (QAA's Code). QAA's Code contains precepts and guidance about the assurance of quality and standards in collaborative activity. In the context of these audits, it was used as a reference point by the audit team, and its contents are reflected in the observations in this report. Some institutions also made reference, in their Commentaries, to the former Higher Education Quality Council's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education (1996) (HEQC's Code), which has now been replaced by QAA's Code. In addition to these documents, the team made use of other information in the public domain, including previous HEQC and QAA audit reports on the UK institutions and the information made available on the web sites of their Greek partners.
3 The four UK institutions selected for audit were visited by members of the audit team to discuss the arrangements they had made for assuring quality and standards in their links with the Greek partner institutions. During the visit, each institution made available to the team the evidence it used to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of its arrangements. The team then visited the Greek institutions to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institution's Commentary and from the UK visit. During each of the visits in Greece, further documentation about the link was made available to the team, and discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. QAA is grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Greece for the willing cooperation provided to the team.
The context of collaborative provision with Greek partners
4 Under the Greek constitution, higher education is the exclusive responsibility of the state and may be provided only by state institutions. However, legislation permits private companies offering post-school education to exist as 'Laboratories of Liberal Studies' (LLS), registered with the Ministry of Commerce. LLS offer a wide range of academic programmes, primarily in response to market needs. As businesses, they are free to establish links with higher education providers overseas. Their programmes are not recognised officially by the Greek state, however, and qualifications awarded by overseas institutions on the basis of a programme of study (or any part of a programme) at an LLS are not recognised in Greece for the purposes of public sector employment.
The background to the collaborative arrangement
5 This report considers the arrangement between the University of Abertay Dundee (the University) and North College, Thessaloniki (the College) for the delivery by the College of four full-time undergraduate programmes leading to awards of the University. Three of the programmes - the BA (Honours) Business Studies, BSc (Honours) Computer Studies, and BA (Honours) Applied Art and Design - are two-year 'top-ups', to honours degree level, of Edexcel Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) also offered by the College. The fourth programme, the BA (Honours) Psychology Studies, is a full degree programme of four years' duration. All four programmes were designed by the College and are validated by the University. While the formal status of the College in relation to the University is that of an independent partner institution, the University regards it 'for planning and reporting purposes as a virtual School of the University'. A sign at the College announces that it is a 'University of Abertay Dundee Centre' and prospective students are informed by the University that the College is referred to as 'the University of Abertay Dundee's University Centre in Thessaloniki'. The students are registered students of both institutions. Current student numbers total 56, the details of which are attached as appendix B to this report.
6 North College, Thessaloniki is an independent laboratory of liberal studies established in 1975. It operates from two sites in Thessaloniki - the main Metropolitan Campus situated on the outskirts of the city, and city centre offices used for recruitment and administrative purposes. The College also has a campus in Ioannina and has operated, in the past, from a further campus in Iraklion, Crete. The University-validated programmes are offered only in Thessaloniki. The College has a history of offering its own degree programmes and has been an approved Edexcel assessment centre since 1996. The honours stage of the University-validated programmes is taught in English; Greek is also used in the earlier stages of the programmes.
7 The audit team members who conducted the UK visit to the University of Abertay Dundee were Ms S J Clark, Ms D J Lockton and Mr R P Williams. The members of the team who visited North College (Metropolitan Campus, Thessaloniki) were Mr D C Attwood (audit secretary), Ms S J Clark, Dr P A J Easy, Ms D J Lockton and Mr R P Williams. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Ms S J Clark, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision
8 The Commentary prepared for the purposes of the audit described the link with the College in the context of the University's strategy of widening its student population beyond Dundee and its recognition 'of the benefits to be gained from cross-border cooperation in the context of European integration'. It also made clear that the University's general approach to collaborative provision was to use 'the same quality assurance processes as for its Dundee-based provision', adapted or extended as appropriate to 'the particular circumstances' of a partnership. The University thus has no general quality assurance handbook specific to collaborative activity: its core procedures are set out in guidelines applicable to both internal and collaborative provision, supplemented by several documents containing information specific to partnerships.
9 Within the University, responsibility for oversight of quality and standards matters, including collaborative provision, rests with the Committee for Academic Standards and Quality (CASQ), a committee of Senate chaired by the Vice-Principal. The Depute Principal is responsible for 'general oversight' of collaborative provision and, in relation to the link with North College, is proactive in both strategic and operational matters. In December 2000, as a result of an internal audit of systems for collaborative provision carried out in June 2000 under the aegis of the University's Quality Audit Group (see below, paragraph 10), a Collaborative Provision Advisory Panel (CPAP) was also established to ensure 'a focused and consistent approach' to quality and standards in partnership activity. CPAP had not met at the time of the audit visit to the University in February 2001.
10 The University participated in a quality audit by HEQC in 1995 and was subject to two overseas audits of specific partnerships in 1996. The 1995 report noted and supported the University's intention to produce 'a formal policy framework' for collaborative provision. The two overseas reports, while commenting on positive aspects of the University's approach to overseas activity, drew attention to various matters relating to the extent of the University's oversight of the partnerships. The Commentary emphasised the ways in which the University had developed and refined its procedures in response to the three reports and 'in the light of nationally recognised standards': examples included a strengthening of the process for approving new partnerships (see below, paragraphs 13-15) and revisions to its memoranda of agreement (see below, paragraph 19). However, the audit team noted that a formal Collaboration Policy had not been finalised until July 2000, following the internal audit of systems for collaborative provision in the preceding month which had been, according to the resulting report, 'commissioned...in preparation for the mock institutional audits which form part of the University's preparation for QAA Continuation Audit' scheduled for 2001. In some other areas, the University's response to the findings of the 1996 audits had not been sufficient for the team to judge whether the matters arising had been addressed effectively in practice (see below, paragraphs 27, 31 and 36).
11 The Commentary made reference to the ways in which the University had responded to QAA's Code both in relation to its link with the College and more generally. The Collaboration Policy states that the University requires adherence to the Code 'for all collaborative activity...which falls within the terms of that Code'.
12 The Commentary offered no statement on the extent to which the University considered its management of the link with the College to be representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, which is relatively limited in size and scope. The audit team was informed by the Depute Principal, in a meeting with senior staff, that the link embodied the University's practice of applying internal quality assurance procedures, and the College's status as a 'virtual School' gave the link similarities with two other partnerships, one in the UK and one overseas.
The establishment and management of the link
The approval process
13 The Commentary outlined the development of the partnership. Discussions between the College and the then Dundee Institute of Technology commenced in 1992, focusing initially on collaboration in the areas of business and computing. Preliminary visits to Greece by senior management and academic staff of the Institute took place in 1992-93 and the delivery of the first collaborative programmes - an MBA/MBA Marketing and a Postgraduate Diploma/MSc in Software Engineering, both franchises - commenced in 1994. The Commentary reported that this initial approval process had pre-dated the University's current procedures for new partnerships which include a 'due diligence' enquiry into the financial and legal status of prospective partners. The audit team concluded that the approval process showed evidence of a thorough investigation of the College, which had included consideration of staffing and learning resources, and correspondence with the British Council and BTEC (now Edexcel). A number of the College's own quality assurance and administrative procedures were approved as part of the process.
14 Since 1994, there has been a range of developments in the link. Neither the MBA nor the MSc attracted sufficient numbers of suitably qualified students to make them viable and both were withdrawn in 1997, when the initial agreements came up for renewal. However, discussions commenced in 1995 on the possibility of extending the partnership to include undergraduate provision, based on the College's existing degree programmes and articulation with the BTEC HND programmes; in 1996, these plans were formalised and a new Memorandum of Agreement was introduced. Validation events for two-year 'top-up' programmes leading to the awards of BA (Honours) Business Studies and BSc (Honours) Computer Studies were held in June 1997, with the programmes commencing in the autumn of the same year. In 1999 the 'top up' Applied Art and Design programme and the four-year Psychology Studies programme were approved. A joint MSc in Management was also approved in 1999 but, like its postgraduate predecessors, failed to attract sufficient numbers and was withdrawn in 2000.
15 The University's procedures for the approval of new programmes require the appointment, by CASQ, of an Internal Scrutiny Group to undertake an initial review of the proposed new programme. Subject to a positive recommendation by that Group, CASQ appoints a Course Validation Advisory Group (CVAG), with external representation, to consider the proposal in detail. The documentation generated by the developments outlined above indicated that this process had been conducted thoroughly, and in accordance with the stated procedures; as an additional feature, it had included meetings with students on the relevant College HND programmes. It was also evident that the validation reports had been considered in detail by CASQ and that Senate had taken an active interest in the developments. The audit team noted in particular that CASQ had not recommended for approval a College proposal in 1998 for validation of a 'top-up' Media Studies programme, after the relevant CVAG, the membership of which had included two external participants, expressed concern about the level of the curriculum.
16 The thoroughness of the initial validation procedures notwithstanding, the audit team noted with concern certain events that appeared to have taken place subsequent to the validation visits for the Psychology Studies and Applied Art and Design programmes. In May 1999, Senate approved the validation of both programmes from 1999-2000, subject to a range of conditions. The first Applied Art and Design graduates would therefore be expected in summer 2001 and the first Psychology Studies graduates in 2003. Although Senate confirmed in October 1999 that the College had met the institution-wide conditions of validation, the course-specific conditions had not been met by that date and the Senate minutes continued to refer to the 'proposed' programmes. The University informed the team that CASQ had been able to confirm that the course-specific conditions had been met by January 2000, although there was no reference to this matter in the minutes provided for the team. The team noted that CASQ had, in the same month, considered a request from the College for 'retrospective conferment' of University awards on students of the College's own programmes in Psychology and Art and Design 'on the basis that these were substantially the same as the courses put forward for validation'. The College's request was set out in a report from the Depute Principal that raised the possibility of retrospective recognition of several categories of students, including those who had already graduated from the College and those who were part way through their studies. The request was refused by CASQ on the grounds that the University's regulations prohibited 'this extent of accreditation of prior learning'.
17 In July 2000 the College wrote to the University requesting 'retrospective validation' for students who were entering the fourth year of its Psychology programme in 2000-01 and for the Art and Design students who had graduated that summer. The audit team did not see the University's formal response to this request but assumed that it had been positive: during its visit to Greece, it met two fourth-year Psychology students who were expecting to graduate with University awards in 2001, and saw the University Honours degree certificate, dated January 2001, of an Applied Art and Design student who had graduated in June 2000. The team concluded that the Applied Art and Design degree had been awarded after one year of study on a University-approved programme and only six months after validation had been confirmed. No member of the University and no external examiner had been present at the relevant College examination board; a letter of appointment had been sent to the proposed external examiner several weeks after the board had met. The University will wish to reflect upon the extent to which the care taken in the initial validation process may have been undermined by these subsequent developments. The University informed the team subsequently that it was 'not unusual' for students to be granted 'entry with advanced standing' to level four of an Abertay degree delivered in Dundee and for them to achieve an honours award, if successful, after one year of study.
18 The Commentary did not indicate that further developments in the partnership were planned. The audit team noted that Senate, in March 2000 and in the context of a generally positive discussion of the College's annual report for 1998-99, had declared 'ambitious in the context of the poor levels of recruitment to existing programmes' the College's 'plan for the development of additional degree programmes with the University' and had deferred consideration of specific proposals. The team also noted, however, that the College's web site referred to courses 'in the process of validation' by the University and to planned 'additional links...to include new courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level'. The University will no doubt wish to ensure that the College's publicly stated expectations in respect of any future expansion of the link are consistent with its own intentions.
Formal agreements
19 The partnership has been governed by a series of formal agreements. A Memorandum of Cooperation signed by both partners in July 1994 sets out the basic parameters of the relationship; further Memoranda have been issued as plans for individual programmes (or groups of cognate programmes) have been taken forward. Of these, only one - that covering cooperation in the delivery of undergraduate programmes, dated 1996 - remains current. The Memoranda state clearly that the University is responsible for the academic standards of the collaborative programmes, and cover a range of areas, including monitoring, language of delivery, financial arrangements, and the University's residual obligations to students in the event of a premature termination of the partnership. The Commentary reported that in response to QAA's Code the University was in the process of revising its template for Memoranda of Agreement and would then revise as necessary all existing agreements.
20 The audit team noted that the 1996 Memorandum governing cooperation in the delivery of undergraduate programmes set out the framework through which the programmes would be validated and 'delivered from North College's Thessaloniki campus and its associate campuses at Ioannina...and Iraklion'. The Memorandum made no further distinction between these three campuses but stated that any extension of delivery beyond them would require the University's permission. The team queried this matter with University staff and was informed that the validated programmes could be offered only on the Metropolitan campus and that delivery in Ioannina and Iraklion would require separate approval. Delivery of the Edexcel HNDs, for which three of the four University programmes provide top-ups, is not restricted to Thessaloniki. The team noted that the proposed location of delivery of the BA (Honours) Business Studies (the College's validation document for which made reference to 'Out City Campuses') had been checked and confirmed as Thessaloniki by the relevant CVAG in 1997. However, the reports for subsequent undergraduate validations did not record that similar inquiries had been made, nor did they confirm for CASQ and Senate where the programmes were to be delivered. It appeared to the team that the University had been operating on the assumption that the Metropolitan campus would be the location of delivery. While the team saw no evidence that the University-validated provision had been delivered beyond Thessaloniki, as the University proceeds with its current review of memoranda of agreement, it will wish to ensure that the Memorandum is revised to capture and formalise its assumptions about the partnership.
21 The Commentary drew attention to the University's intention, recorded as a key objective in its Strategic Plan 1999, to 'have in place individual academic procedures manuals in respect of all partner institutions by the end of session 1999-2000'. The manuals are intended to 'identify the range of responsibilities and channels of communication open to staff and students'. The Commentary acknowledged that work on the manuals had proceeded slowly, owing to delays in finalising a template: at the time of audit visit to Dundee, the University and the College were in the process of adding detail to a draft document; the manual was complete by the time of the audit team's visit to the College and carried an implementation date of September 2001. It appeared to the team that the Procedures Manual was a potentially useful document that built upon the requirements set out in the Memoranda.
22 Prior to 2000-01 'the University produced certificates and transcripts for collaborative arrangements that were identical to those for Dundee-based programmes of study'. The Commentary reported that this practice had been revised from the current session, in the light of QAA's Code award certificates now signalled the existence of an accompanying transcript, on which the name of the partner institution and the language of delivery were recorded. The sample certificate provided by the University reflected this new practice, as did the January 2001 certificates seen by the audit team during its visit to the College.
23 However, the position in respect of transcripts was less clear to the audit team. In discussions with University staff the team heard that, contrary to the statement in the Commentary, it had not been the University's practice to produce transcripts for students at the College. At the College, the team was told that transcripts were now produced by the University, although the College produced an unofficial 'notification of performance' that was verified by the University. The sample transcript produced by the University for the team, dated April 2001, was consistent with the University's stated new practice and thus with QAA's Code. However, one of the January 2001 award certificates appeared to be accompanied only by a College-produced 'notification of performance' which was stated as 'official' but did not record the language of delivery; it also gave the impression, incorrectly, that the holder had spent two years on a University-validated programme (see above, paragraph 17). The University informed the team subsequently that the new transcript model would take effect only from awards made in June 2001.
24 The Memoranda require the College to seek approval for any publicity or promotional materials using the University's name. The Commentary reported that such materials included course leaflets that were produced by the College and approved by the University. Responsibility for oversight of publicity rests with the Depute Principal and the University has 'been able to monitor, edit and approve material on numerous occasions'. The audit team was informed that in the first years of the partnership, the University had required all materials written in Greek to be submitted with an English translation and had secured an independent verification of that translation; the results had given it confidence in the accuracy of the materials and an independent translation was no longer deemed to be necessary. While the documentary evidence available to the team suggested that the University had exercised its responsibilities in this area with appropriate care, it met students who stated that they had joined the College in 1997, attracted by the prospect of an Abertay Dundee degree. Their programmes had not in fact been subject to the University's formal validation process until 1998 and were approved only in 1999. While it is not unusual for UK institutions to give their partners permission to advertise programmes as 'subject to validation', in the view of the team it was not good practice nor in the best interests of prospective students to give such permission so far in advance of a detailed scrutiny process - the University's decision not to approve the College's Media Studies programme (see above, paragraph 15) demonstrated that validation was by no means a certainty. More generally, the University may wish to reflect on the prudence of abandoning completely its practice of securing independent translations, given the increasing use of web technologies (see above, paragraph 18) and the College's extensive use of Greek in its publicity materials.
Quality of learning opportunities and student support
Liaison and administration
25 The Commentary indicated that, while the College communicated freely with departments and offices of the University as appropriate, formal liaison between the partners had, until recently, taken place largely at a senior level. Since 1995 there have been annual 'monitoring' visits by senior academic and administrative staff, including the Depute Principal and the directors of academic services departments, resulting in informative reports back to the University. The College Principal became a member of the University's Senate in 1999. It was clear to the audit team that liaison between senior staff of the University and the College was well-developed and sustained, and provided the University with a clear oversight of the link at the highest levels. The team noted, as an example of the sense of institutional partnership that had been created, that the University had recently approved a nomination from the College for the award of an honorary degree.
26 Liaison at senior level notwithstanding, prior to 2000-01 there has been no mode of formal, continuing liaison between the partners at academic subject level in respect of the undergraduate programmes. University subject staff have been involved in the various approval visits to the College and in two recent programme reviews (see below, paragraph 28) but have not otherwise played a part in the University's oversight of the validated provision. Although senior members of the College have visited Dundee on a regular basis, the list of visits provided for the audit team by the College suggested that on only three occasions since 1994 had a member of the University's teaching staff visited the College for reasons other than to participate in a formal scrutiny or review. In February 1999 CASQ recommended that 'the University should consider making it a condition of course validations...that an "academic adviser" be appointed to each course by the University' to 'provide advice and support to course teams with respect to input and process standards'. The role is intended to be an extension of the existing role of 'mentor' to external examiners (see below, paragraph 38). The Commentary reported that in respect of the College, academic advisers to two of the four programmes had been appointed and had visited Greece; by the time of the team's visit to the University, four academic advisers were in place. Their duties, outlined briefly in the new Procedures Manual and a paper from the University's Secretariat, are to provide 'peer support to' and 'a point of contact for' the course team, and to 'provide support to the course external examiner'. In undertaking these duties, they are expected to visit Greece at least twice a year and provide reports on the visits for both CASQ and the College. The academic advisers informed the team that they expected these duties to develop in the future.
27 The audit team viewed the appointment of academic advisers as a welcome development that had the potential to increase greatly the information obtained by the University about the academic standards of its awards offered through the link. The team was concerned, however, that it had taken the University some two years, from CASQ's initial decision, to appoint the advisers for the College, a delay that was even more surprising given that one of the 1996 audits had drawn attention, in the context of the effectiveness of the University's monitoring arrangements, to an absence of contact between academic staff of the University and another partner. Further, while the Commentary described as 'pending' the reports of the first two academic advisers to visit Greece, those reports were not provided for the team in the UK and, by May 2001, had not been seen by staff at the College. The University will wish to ensure that the academic adviser system and associated reporting requirements are implemented in full without further delay.
Monitoring and review
28 The University's monitoring of the validated programmes is based on the annual visits of senior staff (see above, paragraph 25) and, since 1999, the submission of a College annual report for consideration by CASQ and Senate. The two College reports provided for the audit team, produced according to a University template, summarised the main issues arising for the College during the year, covering matters such as admissions and quality assurance, and included statistical information and responses to external examiners' reports. Annual service reports and plans are also submitted. In addition, while the University operates a five-year cycle of programme review for its internal programmes, the College's programmes are subject to review on a three-yearly basis by a CASQ Course Review Advisory Group, which includes external representation. Reviews of the BA (Honours) Business Studies and BSc (Honours) Computer Studies took place, broadly in accordance with this timetable, in December 2000, and included meetings with students. The evidence available to the audit team suggested that the arrangements for monitoring and review had been conducted thoroughly, and in accordance with the University's expectations.
29 The Memorandum requires the College to establish 'course committees', with student representation, for each validated programme. It was clear from the documentary evidence that these committees (termed 'course boards' by the College) met regularly and had provided a forum through which students could raise issues relating to their studies; the students who met the audit team were satisfied with these arrangements. University staff informed the team that the course board minutes were sent, currently, to the Chair of CASQ and the Secretariat, but that it was likely that future circulation would include the academic advisers.
30 The audit team noted that, circulation of course board minutes aside, the arrangements made no provision for regular University monitoring of the validated programmes at subject level. It was not clear, therefore, how the University assured itself, in the period between validation and review, of the continuing appropriateness of the curriculum and the subject-based learning facilities provided by the College. While the University assigns to its external examiners certain responsibilities in these areas, the team believed that a reliance on their judgements was insufficient, given the particular circumstances of their appointment (see below, paragraph 38). The team noted that the descriptions of the duties of the new academic advisers made no mention of monitoring, nor did they suggest that the advisers might participate in meetings of the course or examination boards. The University may wish to consider this matter further, as it continues to develop the academic adviser role. In so doing, it will wish to give particular attention to its means for monitoring provision in Applied Art and Design, a subject which is not, as CASQ has noted, delivered currently at the University.
Staffing and staff development
31 QAA's Code states that awarding institutions should ensure that effective measures exist to review the proficiency of staff engaged with collaborative programmes. Until recently, the University's approach to this matter has been to review the qualifications of the College's staff at the time of initial approval of a validated programme and during the three-year review; it has not required the College to submit details of any new teaching staff between these events. It appeared to the audit team that this 'hands-off' approach was incompatible with the College's status as a 'virtual School of the University'. The new Procedures Manual specifies, however, that updated staff CVs should be submitted to the University as part of the annual report and that CVs of new staff must be sent to the Secretariat 'as and when new appointments are made'. The team viewed this as a welcome development that the University will no doubt be seeking to include in its revised Memoranda. It is also a development that is overdue, given the absence of continuing liaison at academic level and the suggestion, in one of the 1996 audit reports, that the University should reflect on whether arrangements similar to those operated in relation to the College enabled it to assure itself of the suitability of staff delivering programmes leading to its awards.
32 The Commentary indicated that the University had made a particular commitment to staff development in the link, by 'rolling out' development opportunities to College staff. Examples included the delivery, by the Director of the Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, of three staff development seminars at the College over the past three years; the piloting at the College of a development programme equating to the first module of the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching; and 'provision of access to research degrees for suitably qualified staff'. It was clear that, in accordance with the guidance in QAA's Code, the University had made a commendable commitment to the provision of staff development opportunities for its partner. The audit team noted that the staff development opportunities provided through these routes were intended to be primarily pedagogic in nature, rather than focused on specific academic subject areas.
Provision of information for students
33 The Commentary outlined a range of information available to College students, ranging from course leaflets (see above, paragraph 24), 'validated programme documentation' based on University guidelines, and a range of University information displayed in the College. Students are issued with Abertay Dundee registration cards and a letter confirming the status of the College; they will also have access, in due course, to the Procedures Manual, which sets out the basis upon which students may appeal to the University. Provision of access to the University's intranet is the subject of current exploration between information services staff of both institutions. The students who met the audit team were satisfied with the information available to them and clear about their status in relation to the University; notably, the Chairman of the Student Representatives' Committee was in contact with the President of the University's Students' Union.
Assurance of the standards of awards
Admissions
34 QAA's Code requires an awarding institution to both set and monitor the application of admissions requirements for collaborative programmes. The Commentary stated that the entry requirements for the College's programmes were approved on initial validation and specified in course documents; the majority of students on three of the four programmes transfer direct from the Edexcel HNDs. All students are required to provide evidence of English language ability. The audit team was informed that the University made no formal check on the qualifications of the students admitted by the College at the point of admission or registration; any difficulties were expected to emerge during the three-yearly reviews. The University was, however, pursuing the possibility of direct electronic data transfer with the College and the need to clarify the procedures for checking entry qualifications at partner institutions had been recognised in the June 2000 internal audit. The University will wish to ensure that this matter is addressed as a matter of priority: the current reliance on periodic review coupled with the admissions information supplied in the College's annual reports (which records only the number of admissions and not students' entry qualifications) is, in the view of the team, insufficient to meet the expectations of QAA's Code.
Language of delivery and assessment
35 The Commentary reported that students were 'taught and assessed progressively in English until, by the honours stage, they are taught and assessed wholly in English'. The 1996 Memorandum permits the use of Greek until the fourth year of the programmes and the students who met the audit team confirmed that only in their final year were they were taught and assessed wholly in English. This position suggested to the team that there had been a development in policy from the early days of the partnership: the original Memorandum of 1994 for the franchised postgraduate programmes stated that the 'medium of instruction' would be English. The team noted that this development was not incompatible with the shift from franchised to validated provision. However, it was unclear how the University had assessed the implications of the use of Greek for its own capacity to maintain an oversight of the quality and standards of the programmes. The matter is particularly pressing in relation to the Psychology Studies programme, all four years of which are validated by the University.
The assessment of students
36 The Commentary described 'the processes of programme validation, review and monitoring' as the 'key means by which the University has assured itself of the academic standards' of the validated programmes. The University has no direct involvement, at subject level, in the assessment of students, beyond the approval of the College's assessment regulations and the work of its external examiners. It was unclear to the audit team whether this approach would be modified under the new academic adviser system: the intended duties of such advisers do not specify involvement in assessment beyond 'providing peer support in...assessment design'. The Commentary reported that the partners had been discussing the benefits of moving to common use of the University assessment regulations; in the view of the team, this would be an appropriate development, given that the College is regarded as a 'virtual School of the University'. One of the 1996 audit reports commented on the lack of University involvement in assessment processes for the awards offered through its partner and expressed uncertainty, as a result, 'about how the University routinely satisfied itself that its own requirements and expectations in respect of the awards for which it takes responsibility continued to be met'. The team saw no evidence that the University had taken steps to address this matter in the four years since that audit, and reiterates with renewed emphasis the concern expressed in the 1996 report.
External examiners
37 Given that the University plays no direct role in the assessment processes for the validated programmes, in the view of the audit team its most direct assurance that academic standards are appropriate is provided by external examiners. The Commentary stated that the processes governing the work of the external examiners appointed to the College's programmes were identical to those for internal provision: appointments are approved by CASQ using a standard form; the appointees are invited to the University's periodic conferences for external examiners; they are required to report back to the University using a template provided for that purpose; and their reports are considered by CASQ's External Examiner Advisory Panel. These procedures and the University's expectations of its external examiners are set out clearly in an External Examiners Handbook, produced by the Secretariat.
38 The Commentary reported that for the franchised and joint programmes (see above, paragraph 14), the University's policy had been to invite the external examiners already appointed for its internal programmes to extend their work to the College. For the validated undergraduate programmes, four new external examiners were appointed. The team noted that all four were Greek academics employed by institutions in Thessaloniki; one, appointed in 1997, was a part-time employee of the College in 1994-95. There is no equivalent of the UK external examiner system in Greece and it appeared that none of the four had experience of teaching and examining in the UK. The Commentary reported that the University had recognised that the group would need 'special induction support' and had appointed 'mentors' from amongst its own staff to support them; because neither the University nor the College found the mentoring system effective, the role has now been replaced by that of academic adviser (see above, paragraph 26). The Commentary also drew attention to inadequacies in the reports received to date from the external examiners and emphasised that the University had sought to address this matter through a meeting between three of the examiners and the Director of the Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in September 2000.
39 It was evident to the audit team that the University was taking action to ensure that the external examiners were aware of their responsibilities. It was less clear, however, why the University had made appointments that had rendered such action necessary. While the team was informed that the use of 'mentors' was not restricted to the College's programmes, it found no mention of either mentors or academic advisers in the External Examiners Handbook. It appeared to the team unlikely that, for its internal programmes, the University would appoint a series of external examiners who had no experience of examining in the UK and were thus unable to report on how academic standards compared with those attained by students studying elsewhere for UK awards. Nor would it consider acceptable the recruitment of persons solely from other institutions in the University's immediate vicinity. The appointment of a recent former employee as an external examiner would appear to be incompatible with the University's formal selection criteria. These factors led the team to conclude that, as operated in relation to the College, there was serious doubt as to the integrity of the University's external examiner system as a significant contribution to the means for assuring standards. The University's practices in this area are not consistent with the expectations of QAA's Code. The University informed the team subsequently that 11 of its current external examiners for internal programmes were of high professional standing but had no experience of teaching in the UK, and that it had judged 'the part-time and temporary nature' of the previous employment by the College of one of the external examiners 'as being within the bounds of the "normally" rule' of the University's 'guidance on examiner appointments'.
Conclusions
40 The University of Abertay Dundee established its link with North College, Thessaloniki in 1992-93 and the partnership has developed at a steady pace since that date. Although collaboration at postgraduate level has not proved successful, the University now validates four undergraduate programmes designed and delivered by the College. The University describes the College, variously, as a 'virtual School of the University' and a 'University Centre' and has sought to manage the link in accordance with the quality assurance principles it uses for its internal provision. In so doing, some aspects of its work, most notably its approach to programme approval and review, its commitment to staff development, and the strong sense of institutional partnership created, have been impressive.
41 There are, however, aspects of the University's management of the link that give cause for concern. The absence, until very recently, of systematic and continuing contact between academic staff at the University and the College, particularly in relation to assessment, coupled with the University's decision to appoint Greek-based external examiners with no experience of teaching and examining in the UK, has left the University with only limited means by which to judge that the academic standards achieved by College students are appropriate to the award of its degrees. In one case, degrees have been awarded to students after one year of study on a University-validated programme, without the involvement of either an external examiner or a member of the University's academic staff. The University does not yet monitor whether or not its admissions requirements are met and it is not clear that the implications of a policy that permits students to be taught in Greek until the final year of their degree programmes has been assessed. While it is clear that QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999) has been given serious consideration within the University, in a range of areas its current practices do not meet the expectations of that Code. These deficiencies are particularly worrying precisely because there is no doubt that the University's corporate oversight of the link has been active, and that business relating to the College has been considered regularly and systematically at senior committee level. It should be emphasised that these comments are not directed, in any way, at the College itself or at its staff, who have worked hard to ensure that the University's requirements are met.
42 In June 2000, in preparation for its forthcoming QAA continuation audit, the University conducted an internal review of its systems for collaborative provision. The recommendations arising from that review have set in progress, or quickened the application of, a series of measures that should serve to strengthen the central committee focus on collaborative matters, to formalise procedures in a range of areas, and to increase the level of interaction at subject level between academic staff of the University and its partner institutions. While implementation of the recommendations has the potential to address many of the areas of concern identified by this audit, it is too early to judge their effectiveness and the University's slowness, in the past, to take action in response both to external reports and the policies of its own committees, limits the degree of confidence that can be placed in its capacity to ensure that improvements are achieved in the future.
43 The Commentary produced for the purposes of the audit gave a helpful account of the nature of the link between the University and the College and drew attention to areas in which the University felt that it had experienced difficulties. However, it did not signal the University's awareness of some of the matters identified by this audit. The University considers the link to illustrate some of the procedures and practices it adopts in relation to its overseas collaborative activity more generally. The findings of the audit give only limited grounds for confidence in the University's stewardship of quality and standards in its link with the College.
Appendix A*
Commentary on the report of the QAA quality audit of the University's collaboration with North College, Greece
Introduction
The University welcomes the fact that the report identifies that aspects of its work with the College have been impressive, and the helpful insights from which it can benefit as it continues to enhance its quality assurance framework and its approach to collaborative provision.
The University notes that the audit addressed the collaborative arrangements of the partnership and was not a subject review, which would have considered the quality of subject provision, nor an institutional review of the College, which would have given a holistic view of the College including its internal quality procedures. The University believes, therefore, that the somewhat restricted nature of the overseas audit model, means that some positive features of the partnership in relation to quality enhancement and good practice were not explored through the process and are not brought out in the report. This statement highlights some of these features.
In addition, this statement outlines a number of enhancements that the University has made, or is making, to its quality and standards framework for collaborative provision following the audit visit to the University in February 2001 and to the College in May 2001.
Nature of the partnership
In the context of a partnership between two small institutions with flat academic and management structures the report perhaps underplays the significance of the regular interactions between North College staff and those of the University at both the corporate and subject levels. Typically there have been 50 students enrolled on the four programmes at North College leading to the University's awards. Three of these programmes are two-year top-up degree programmes for holders of the Edexcel HND programmes operated by the College. The small scale of this operation led the University to adopt informal quality management processes with a strong emphasis on quality enhancement through regular interaction between staff in the two institutions. Furthermore, the partnership is underpinned by the strong sense of academic community and commitment at the College. This is illustrated by the fact that:
- almost all staff teaching on University-validated programmes at the College have undertaken, or are undertaking, the first module of the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching. A number of staff have now moved on to take the certificate in full. This staff development is already being put into practice, eg, in the development of assessment specifications for modules that clearly identify the level of student achievement expected for different module grades;
- many of the part-time lecturing staff at the College bring to their teaching a greater sense of context and the application of knowledge through their continued professional involvement in business and industry. Their personal commitment to their students and their work at the College extends beyond that which might be expected;
- college staff, supported by the University, are making extensive use of QAA Subject Benchmark Statements when reviewing and updating curricula.
Enhancements to the University's quality assurance framework
The University has gone through enormous changes in recent years and it welcomes the conclusion to the report which acknowledges that the University had reviewed its systems for collaborative provision in 2000, and was in the process of implementing a series of measures that should serve to strengthen its approach to collaboration. In that respect it is somewhat unfortunate that the audit took place too early for the effectiveness of those new arrangements to be judged, and that the findings of the audit are therefore based on the University's former approach to collaboration rather than its current one.
Assessment and External Examiners
The University accepts that its quality assurance systems placed undue reliance on Greek-based External Examiners to calibrate the standards of achievement at North College with those at the University. Senate has recently approved revised procedures for judging the comparability of standards of marking and awards, involving (a) the scrutiny of samples of assessment instruments and students' work by UK-based External Examiners; (b) the moderation of assessment instruments and the second marking of samples of students' work by University staff; (c) the use of marked scripts from previous years to assist academic staff and External Examiners judge comparability of performance; and (d) the appointment of an additional UK-based External Examiner to monitor the overall quality and standards aspects of the collaboration.
Application and admission to programmes
The University will shortly introduce revised applications procedures and arrangements for monitoring entry qualifications of students. All non-standard applications will be referred to the University for a decision.
Language of assessment
The University notes that, although the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement permits students to be taught in Greek until the final year, all assessment of the final two years of the programmes is in English.
Corporate oversight of quality and standards at partner institutions
As was acknowledged in the report, the University has recently strengthened its committee structure to provide a better oversight of collaborative arrangements. The Collaborative Provision Advisory Panel has now been in operation for 10 months and has made significant progress in the development and implementation of quality assurance procedures. In addition the University created, in August 2001, a new post of Depute Principal (Academic Development) with a specific remit of providing leadership and direction to the University's quality and standards processes.
*As supplied by University of Abertay Dundee
Appendix B*
Student numbers at North College, Greece
| Programme | Enrolled session 2001-02 | Completed to date |
| BA (Hons) Applied Art and Design | 13 | 6 |
| BA (Hons) Business & Administration Studies1 | 16 | 36 |
| BSc (Hons) Computer Studies | 14 | 11 |
| BA (Hons) Psychology Studies | 13 | 8 |
1Previously BA (Hons) Business Studies
*As supplied by University of Abertay Dundee
Top