Introduction
1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a UK organisation that seeks 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 2002, QAA audited selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. 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 these countries.
The process of audit of overseas partnership links
2 In February 2001, QAA invited all UK institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships. Using this information, QAA approached a number of institutions who had indicated that they had established collaborative links with Danish, German or Swiss partners. Following discussion, a variety of collaborative partnerships was selected for scrutiny. Each of the UK institutions whose collaborative link had been selected for the audit provided a Commentary describing the way the partnership operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which the UK institution assured quality and standards in the link. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its Commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity or specific to the partnership being audited and its national context.
3 Audit teams visited the Danish, German and Swiss partner 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 the visits to Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, further documentation about the partnerships was made available to the team, and discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. The audit team comprised Professor R Bryant, Dr R Davison and Professor M Shaw, auditors. The UK and overseas audit exercise was coordinated for QAA by Dr P J A Findlay and Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Directors, Institutional Review Directorate, QAA. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Denmark, Germany and Switzerland for the willing cooperation provided to the teams.
4 Institutions were invited, in their Commentaries, to make reference to the ways in which their arrangements met the expectations of QAA's Code of practice on the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999) (QAA's Code), which took full effect in August 2000.
5 This report describes the audit of the collaborative link between Anglia Polytechnic University (APU or the University) and the Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft (FHW or the Fachhochschule) in Berlin, Germany. The audit was conducted on the basis of visits by an audit team to the institutions concerned and on the scrutiny of documentary evidence made available by both the University and the Fachhochschule. A series of meetings was held on 18 March 2002 at the University between the team and senior staff of the University, and these were followed by a visit to the Fachhochschule on 3 May 2002, when the team met with staff and with students following the University's programmes.
6 The most recent QAA audit of APU at institutional level took place in 2000. The University's general collaborative arrangements were the subject of a quality audit report by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) in 1995. The University's Business and Management provision was assessed by QAA in 2001 and was approved.
The background to the collaborative partnership
7 The provision offered in the context of this collaborative partnership between APU and FHW comprises two programmes in the business studies area. The first is a dual award in which successful students receive the BA (Hons) European Business (Berlin) award from the University and Diplom Kaufmann/Kauffrau award of the Fachhochschule. The second programme offered within this partnership is the part-time MBA programme of the University, delivered by FHW under a franchise arrangement. As the University's Commentary explained, the partnership with FHW was established in the late 1980s and early 1990s as part of APU's international strategy, where the focus was at that time primarily on partnerships within Europe. In that context, and building on ERASMUS relationships, FHW Berlin was an early partner, and the long-standing nature of the relationship has led to a 'closeness of cooperation' and 'mutual trust' that are valued by both partners.
8 The undergraduate dual award was jointly developed by the two institutions and validated in 1990, at that time carrying the title of BA in European Business Administration. The University reviewed the programme in 1995 and the curriculum was revised so that it aligned with the modular scheme at APU. At APU, the BA European Business Administration (BAEBA) award now takes the form of a multi-pathway international programme offered with four European partners. Within the framework of the European Business award field, the collaboration with FHW constitutes what is known as the 'Berlin Pathway'. The design of the programme involves a required period of study at each of the partner institutions, and aims to provide academic and vocational skills within a broad business education in two languages and including a placement element. The pattern of study at APU is that students may spend either year 1 or year 2 in Berlin. After the placement year in year 3, the students may opt to spend either the whole year in Berlin or semester 7 in Berlin and semester 8 in Cambridge. This is mirrored for German students recruited at the Fachhochschule. Recruitment is intended to be from both the UK and Germany, and students complete a four-year full-time programme, which includes a sandwich placement year. The teaching and assessment is carried out in the language of the institution in which the student is currently following their studies, so that for the Berlin pathway, all students will work in both English and German. The award is managed from the Ashcroft International Business School (AIBS), and the provision is located mainly in the University's Cambridge campus. The BA programme was originally approved by the University as a joint study programme, and this then changed at the time of the 1995 review to a mutual recognition of the credit awarded within each 'free-standing' part of the pathway in Berlin and at APU. The agreed annual intake for the dual award in each institution is 30 students, but while recruitment at FHW has been buoyant, it has been increasingly difficult to recruit suitably qualified UK students.
9 The part-time MBA is one of a suite of part-time MBA programmes offered by the University in partnership with other institutions. It was originally approved in 1992 as a franchised programme to be delivered by FHW to mature part-time students in Berlin. The programme was reviewed by the University in 1997 and at the time of the audit was in the process of undergoing a further major review, with the prospect of moving towards a mutual recognition of credit which would replace the franchise relationship (see below, paragraph 12).
The partner organisation
10 The Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft in Berlin was founded in 1971, and is a State university institution. It is the only higher education institution in Germany, which specialises in economic and business studies and is particularly noted for its development of flexible forms of study and a strong emphasis on business practice within the curriculum. The Fachhochschule has a strong international commitment and has partnership agreements with a number of European partner institutions; it recognises and works with the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). An ECTS module listing, together with other course related information provided by the Fachhochschule, is published in German and English.
11 The programmes offered by FHW are formally approved by the Berlin State authorities under the legal framework for Berlin universities. This requires the submission and State approval of detailed statements relating to the definition of the course of study (Studienordnung) and to the assessment requirements (Prüfungsordnung). These requirements apply to the BA/Diplom dual award programme.
12 In the wake of the Bologna Declaration in 1999, legislative changes in Germany permit the Fachhochschule to award its own MBA awards under the German State qualifications framework. As a result, FHW now offers a portfolio of five MBA programmes, including that with APU. As part of its strategic plan to offer international dual awards similar to those already in place with its Dutch and French partner institutions, FHW is committed to retaining its link with APU. The current proposal, at an advanced stage of planning at the time of the audit, is for a dual MBA award to commence in Autumn 2002. It is intended that this will replace the current franchise arrangements. FHW then will award 120 of the 180 credits, which will be validated and recognised by APU. APU for its part will be responsible for 60 credits at the advanced level, including a 30-credit dissertation, which must be submitted in English. Students will be permitted to study for the advanced level either in Berlin or Cambridge.
13 In recent years, universities in Germany have been subject to an increasingly rigorous system of external evaluation and accreditation through peer review. The Fachhochschule was one of the first group of institutions to take part in a review managed by the German Central Agency for Evaluation and Accreditation (ZEVA). The accreditation process required a self-evaluation by the Fachhochschule, a panel visit consisting of peers from other Fachhochschulen and a formal report published by ZEVA. The report includes consideration of quality assurance arrangements and the management of academic resources. The report highlights the strengths of the Fachhochschule in multi-disciplinarity and internationalisation of the curriculum, and recognises the strong role of the BA European Business programme in this context. More recently still, a full review of the structural plans for the universities in Berlin was carried out in 2002 by the German Higher Education Council (Wissenschaftsrat). This report also praised the flexibility of study at FHW and the range of international programmes offered, and identified 'the qualitatively high standard of studying and teaching at the FHW'.
The University's approach to collaborative provision
14 The University's approach to overseas collaboration was described to the audit team as 'cautious' even in the European context (where it has substantial involvement). The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) explained to the team that APU is now beginning to develop its partnerships on a wider international front but that the strategy is to 'progress slowly and carefully', and to learn from the experience in the European arena. The University's policy is to review all of its established partner institutions every five years, with new links being reviewed at intervals between one and three years.
15 The audit team was interested to explore with senior staff at the University the difference in respect of quality and standards assurance of the requirements of a franchise relationship as against the arrangements for 'mutual recognition of credit' which now applied to the BA programme. The team was informed that whereas the franchise is APU's own course, recognition of credit means that the partner 'cannot be required to report to APU'. However, the arrangements might vary depending on the partner's tradition of quality assurance and whether it is a private institution or operates within a national education framework. The relationship with FHW is viewed by the University as an example of the latter, built on trust and described to the team as 'a deep, robust and sound partnership'. The team also recognised that the confidence of APU in its partner was based upon the University's understanding of the increasingly powerful legal quality framework within which the Fachhochschule works and the commitment of the FHW senior management proactively to develop sound quality systems. Nevertheless, the team had some reservations concerning the effects of the 'mutual recognition' arrangements, and these are outlined later in this report.
Establishment and management of the collaborative partnership
16 The two programmes offered within this partnership are managed by different parts of AIBS, with study opportunities, course leadership and administrative resource based on different campuses. The BA programme is based in Cambridge and the MBA at the University's management centre at Danbury. Within the Business School as a whole, the Deputy Dean is responsible to the Dean for general oversight of both programmes. The audit team noted that in practice the Deputy Dean had been actively involved in the development of the link since its inception and, therefore, had a long-standing role in its overall management. Day-to-day management of the BA programme relies upon a Berlin pathway leader, who together with other European pathway leaders at APU, reports on the quality of the student experience to the field leader who in turn is responsible to the Director of Studies. They are supported by a group of administrators. In Berlin a programme leader and a dedicated administrator manage each of the programmes within FHW. Although more independently managed the BA dual award arrangements require liaison between pathway leaders in respect of the curriculum delivery and student support at the programme level.
17 The University publishes a Quality Assurance Handbook to advise staff on its principles and procedures for the assurance of programmes. This includes a substantial section which relates to the University's regional partnerships, but the audit team was surprised to find that specific references to the management of overseas collaborative provision were more diffuse, and although the team was told that the more general procedures would apply in the overseas context, it was difficult to gain a clear overview of all aspects of the expected procedures. The University's Quality and Standards Committee (QASC) operating on behalf of Senate, has responsibility for the overview of programmes. Amongst its sub-committees are the Monitoring Sub-Committee which considers Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) from partner institutions and the Quality Assurance Group which focuses on international work. Both of these sub-committees meet annually. QASC provides an annual synoptic report on all programmes to Senate, which includes information on collaborative provision. Further, the University's International Policy Group operates at executive level, monitoring the overall development of international work; this group meets five times a year and reports to the Senior Management Team. The team heard that key information about the programmes reached the Pro-Vice-Chancellor in a number of ways through meetings with senior colleagues and via the committee structure. On the basis of the evidence seen, the team found that the University had suitable procedures in place to ensure that crucial information relating to overseas collaborative provision would reach the appropriate parties in its deliberative and executive structures.
Adherence to the Code
18 The University's Commentary made few references to the Code. The audit team noted that the current (1999) edition of the University's Quality Assurance Handbook included substantial reference to the previous (1995) HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education. The team was told that QASC was responsible for reviewing all aspects of adherence to the Code, that this was an ongoing process, and that the Memoranda of Cooperation for the partnership were currently being revised according to the Code. The team found little evidence to show that the programmes at FHW have yet been formally and systematically reviewed in the light of the QAA Code.
Extent to which the link is representative
19 The University's view was that this partnership link could be viewed as representative of its broader approach and procedures relating to overseas collaborative provision 'in some ways'. The dual award is 'atypical but has features in common with other arrangements'. The Dean of AIBS explained that the FHW link 'shows a genuine partnership' but that there are other arrangements which are technically different such as more traditional franchises and the '3+1' programmes offered by the University The University emphasised in its Commentary and in meetings that the long-standing and proven nature of this relationship and the trust and experience thus engendered had meant that it differed from newly established partnerships with regard to the level of control required.
Approval of the collaborative partnership
Selection of the partner
20 The Commentary explained that the link had arisen from visits to Germany during 1988-1990 which had taken place in the context of the University's commitment to an increased European dimension. Over that period, staff from both institutions had worked together to design a jointly agreed curriculum for the dual award of the BA (Hons) European Business Administration and the Diplom Kaufmann. This was followed by a validation process, with visits to Cambridge and Berlin, by a joint CNAA/Anglia Higher Education College panel in May 1990. The MBA development had followed later, mainly as a result of the successful cooperation in the first two years of the BA delivery and the market for a part-time MBA identified by FHW. As FHW was an established State university institution, the choice of partner had been a mutual process, focusing on academic collaboration.
Initial approval process
21 The University's procedure for approving new collaborative links requires scrutiny and approval at institutional level by the International Policy Group and subsequently by the Corporate Management Group before initial validation. The link with FHW was established before these procedures for strategic consideration were in place. Understandably, only limited information now remained available on the original approval procedures for the programmes at FHW. The University had developed its procedures considerably in this regard over the intervening ten years. With regard to the current validation arrangements for a new programme, the audit team was told that a new MBA collaboration with a different partner had recently been approved after two years of development work with close attention to quality assurance processes. The development process for the new programme had been followed by a two-stage event, first at APU, and then a second stage combining an institutional review and approval of the franchise. The documentation requirements for validation now included a full description of the partner organisation, its structures and procedures and a detailed account of all aspects of programme operation, including management and resources. Validation events are evaluated and an overview report on the process as a whole is made annually to QASC and Senate.
Approval of subsequent amendments
22 The University revalidated the original version of the BA programme in 1995, bringing it into the University's modular scheme. The process included a joint review of the curriculum and a validation event at APU for its own freestanding part of the programme, with representatives from Berlin in attendance. The changes required to address the modular curriculum have not all been straightforward to implement in the FHW context, and subsequent approval had also been necessary from the German State authorities. The BA pathways were reviewed again in 2000 as part of the review of all of the AIBS undergraduate programmes. Senior staff at FHW and students on the programme confirmed that changes were discussed fully with them.
23 The audit team was interested to know whether FHW could modify modules independently and what impact this might have on the APU programme. Both partners explained that the discussion on modular structure and content required detailed discussion at the validation stage. There was evidence of some fine tuning on module content and sequencing. However, making more substantial changes to the curriculum requires State approval in Germany and entails protracted negotiations with the relevant State authorities. As a consequence FHW prefers not to make frequent changes to the programme. Students in Berlin told the team that they had been made aware of these constraints when they had raised an issue of duplication of course elements between APU and FHW.
24 The MBA was reviewed in 1997 and the audit team noted that the submission documentation provided by FHW was thorough and appropriately evaluative. Revalidation of the programme had entailed a panel visit to Berlin, chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and with a resulting report which set conditions with deadlines. The report was submitted to the (then) Academic Quality and Development Committee of Senate. It was evident from the report that the panel helpfully emphasised APU's responsibility as well as that of its partner for developing responses to the conditions set. However, the team remained unclear about the process for signing off the conditions. They noted that a condition requiring a strategy for ensuring that oral assessment was effectively evaluated and moderated by the external assessor and APU, continued to be an issue in subsequent external assessor reports and were told that this remains a matter which exercises FHW. The University may wish to consider whether its process for ensuring that validation conditions are met is sufficiently robust.
Formal arrangements
Written agreements
25 There is a Memorandum of Cooperation in place for each of the two programmes. Both of these were currently under review in light of the Code. The Memorandum for the MBA was first put in place in 1991 and was revised in 1998. At the time of the audit this was being redrafted to reflect the proposed change to a dual award MBA.
26 The audit team was surprised to learn that the Memorandum for the BA programme had been in place since 1990, in spite of the major change to the arrangements in 1995. The Commentary suggested that this situation reflected the success of the cooperation, where over ten years it had never been necessary to seek recourse to the legal agreement. Nevertheless, the team considered that the University had been unduly slow in addressing the revision to the Memorandum, especially in light of the advice in the QAA Code. A final draft was in the process of being signed by the partners at the time of the audit. This was seen by the team, and it confirmed that each partner is separately responsible for quality and standards within the national quality frameworks of their respective countries. The areas identified for joint agreement are the modules (to be broadly equivalent in academic content and learning outcomes) and a set of regulations and guidelines for the students' work experience. With the exception of the two programme leaders who are responsible for effective liaison and communication, the roles and responsibilities of each partner are defined as autonomous. The team noted therefore that in many respects the Memorandum for the BA dual award lies outside of the normal requirements of the Code as they relate to validated and franchised programmes. It also observed that the draft Memorandum did not yet address a number of matters recommended in the Code, for instance the inclusion of clear statements relating to student complaints and appeals and to the language(s) of assessment and instruction. The University may wish to review carefully the appropriate form of agreement for its dual award arrangements, and ensure that its responsibility for the stewardship of its own awards is reflected fully therein.
Locus of responsibility for quality and standards
27 The Commentary made clear that FHW and APU are each respectively responsible for the quality and standards of their separate awards for the BA programme - 'the quality of the award is ensured by the quality management and enhancement processes in place at both institutions'. The underlying principle is that 'the academic standards of the dual award shall be the mutual recognition of each institution's standards by the other institution'.
28 APU recognises the standards of the FHW elements of the BA programme through a credit rating process which the audit team was told was 'carried out professionally by experts' and was then reported to the University's QASC. What this means in effect is that APU does not seek to exercise any control over those modules delivered by its partner, other than in terms of agreed equivalence of content by level, and with regard to assessed outcomes. It accepts that the locus of responsibility for quality and standards belongs separately to each institution. This perspective on standards is reciprocated by FHW in its own recognition of the level of modules delivered by APU.
29 In respect of the BA programme, this position is, in the view of the audit team, one which allows for a very high level of independent operation by the University's partner institution. Taken together with the University's approach to the mutual recognition of credit and the impact of that arrangement on the management of assessment, it amounts in effect to an almost total delegation to the partner institution of the responsibility for the quality and standards of a major part of the provision leading to one of the University's awards. As will be seen, this was a matter of some concern for the team (see below, paragraph 65).
30 For the MBA, the Memorandum of Cooperation states that FHW must abide by 'all the University rules and regulations relating to the delivery and academic standards of the MBA programme', and that 'as the awarding institution, the University has ultimate responsibility for the academic standards of the programme'. It became clear to the audit team during their discussions with staff at APU and FHW that in practice much of this responsibility is devolved to FHW. However, senior staff at the Fachhochschule considered that the quality assurance framework provided by the University was clear in its requirements and had been regularly applied, particularly at the beginning of the franchise. The team was told that the partners had developed a 'closer spirit' about the operation of the MBA over the years, and that FHW staff had gained valuable experience in addressing formal procedures and documentary requirements. The team was persuaded of this but considered that in some respects the responsibility for standards required further clarification (see below, paragraph 66).
Issuing of certificates and transcripts
31 The University stated that it issues certificates and transcripts to completing students registered for the BA award. As would be expected from the agreement, FHW issues its own certificate and transcript for the Diplom Kaufmann. The University awards its certificate for the franchised MBA delivered at FHW, and the Fachhochschule additionally provides a certificate and transcript of its own. A specimen example of the MBA certificate provided to the audit team left some doubt in their mind as to its appropriateness since it stated that the award was made on the basis of following an approved programme 'which included a year of study at the FHW'. The team did not see a transcript provided by APU.
Control over the accuracy of publicity and marketing material
32 The BA programme is publicised in the prospectuses of each institution and on their web sites. The audit team was told that the University does not seek to exercise control over FHW for the marketing of this programme, as the two institutions have joint ownership. Nevertheless, the team was of the view that the University might wish to carry out periodic checks to ensure that statements made in its name were appropriate and reliable.
33 For the franchised MBA, draft copies of promotion and publicity material are submitted to APU. However, the audit team noted that the current Memorandum of Cooperation for the MBA states that FHW is responsible for all promotional and recruitment activities and that it should ensure that marketing, publicity and other material accurately reflects the course. The team was told on various occasions that responsibility for checking accuracy lay with the Fachhochschule, the Director of Studies in the AIBS, and the pathway leader. The pathway leader acknowledged that the procedure for checking might not be sufficiently formal since he 'had not been consulted on the wording on occasion'. Although this was regarded as 'a case of no cause for concern', the team considered that the lack of clarity in the process and the uncertainty about the precise point of responsibility might leave the University exposed.
Quality of learning opportunties and student support
Liaison and administration
34 The audit team noted the pivotal role of the APU pathway leader in supporting students and the extensive duties of the post, which are not formally defined. The duties range from providing information to students, easing their transition in one direction or the other, finding project supervisors, providing formal and informal advice and acting as a personal tutor for all students on the pathway. The team learnt that the pathway leaders for the undergraduate BA programme visit each other's institution twice a year and communicate frequently. The administrator in the Inter-Field Office at Cambridge and her equivalent in Berlin maintain administrative communication links. The main purpose of liaison within the 'mutual recognition' arrangements for the BA is to discuss student progress and any difficulties and to ensure both sets of regulations are being addressed, an instance being the equivalence of final year modules'.
35 The audit team saw evidence that liaison between the pathway leaders was strong within the context of the BA programme, as was the support for students, whose opinion was that the quality of support was extremely good in both institutions. They were particularly appreciative of the close tutorial support provided during their studies at APU. The team noted that the work of the APU pathway leader was particularly valued by students on the programme. Given the important role played by the pathway leader, the team advises that the University formally define that for purposes of clarity and with a view to the future induction of others.
36 For the franchised MBA programme, a full-time pathway leader at FHW manages the programme as delivered in Berlin, and liaises with the pathway leader for the part-time MBA programme in AIBS. The audit team heard from senior staff at FHW that this had proved to be an effective arrangement in clarifying for FHW the University's requirements for its franchise. Liaison for the MBA programme is maintained by regular contact between the pathway leaders in each institution and by the administrators. The University's Commentary highlighted the continuity of management and the strong liaison between colleagues in Berlin and AIBS, with regular and direct contact between staff. The visits to FHW included the delivery of modules by APU staff at the Fachhochschule, with shared team teaching. The team was told that there is also a good deal of tutor-to-tutor communication by e-mail. Key points in the year when senior staff meet include the MBA open day, the two examination boards held in June and October and the annual MBA Forum, a meeting of the European partners. Course Board meetings are held twice each semester in Berlin, and are attended by teaching staff and by students, together with University representation. An annual progress review is held following the meeting of the Awards Board, attended by the full FHW teaching team, and this includes a review of the curriculum and the development of teaching and learning plans for the following year. Discussion with staff in both institutions confirmed to the team that the links at programme leader and senior management levels were strong, and that there was also good liaison for some, but not all, of the programme modules.
37 The audit team was therefore surprised to learn from some of the MBA students that they considered their relationship to APU to be relatively anonymous. This view depended somewhat on whether students had been able to attend study days at APU. These had become a regular feature of the course but students would have liked the opportunity to spend more time studying in the University. Some students met by the team had rarely seen APU staff in Berlin, even at a Course Board, and considered that communication between APU and the students could be enhanced. This view related particularly to the lack of feedback on the major assignment that they complete for the 30 credits of the course delivered and assessed by APU. Students also considered that APU should take a stronger interest in the adequacy of learning resources for the programme.
Monitoring and review, including student feedback
38 The University has formal requirements for the annual monitoring of its programmes, including collaborative provision. For the BA European Business, the pathway leader prepares an Annual Pathway Report (APR) on the Berlin Pathway, which is incorporated into the European Business Field report and summarised in the AMR of the Business School programme at Cambridge. The AMR is, in turn, considered by the Campus Academic Standards Committee, and matters of particular note are reported to the University-level committees. The audit team found that the APR was a well-prepared, full and analytical document with due attention to addressing matters previously identified for action; however it was noticeable that the report related predominantly to the management of the pathway at APU, rather than to the Berlin pathway programme (and the student experience) as a whole. The University's Commentary explained that following the move to mutual recognition, the University now no longer required FHW to contribute to the AMR for the BA programme. The team was interested to know whether APU had any monitoring role at all with regard to the FHW modules. They were told that since the curriculum is fixed at a level of equivalence, APU relies entirely on assessment outcomes to verify the quality of the FHW programme. The team also understood that there is no University requirement to share the monitoring reports with FHW. In the view of the team, the University might usefully consider whether 'mutual recognition' could be better underpinned by a higher level of exchange of key quality and standards information for the benefit of both parties, and in particular whether the APR should not be a shared document.
39 For the franchised MBA, the pathway leader at FHW produces an AMR (in English), consistent with the University's standard quality assurance requirements. FHW monitoring reports were now viewed by APU as 'models of good practice'. As required by the University, they include a summary of module evaluations as well as details on admissions, student progression and the process for collecting student feedback. The audit team was provided with documentary evidence to show that the reports are submitted through the Programme Director to the Academic Office and are then considered at the International Monitoring Committee after which they are considered at QASC. Follow up action is the joint responsibility of the pathway leaders at APU and Berlin. Senior staff in FHW assured the team that this process was effective in securing continuous improvements to the programme. Academic staff teaching on the MBA at FHW were not, however, aware of any formal feedback provided by APU in response to the annual reports. The team confirmed that the monitoring reports were full, informative and appropriately analytical documents which were considered through due process in AIBS and by the University. The University may, however, wish to ensure that its partner institution is kept informed of the discussion and response to the reports.
40 Student feedback for the undergraduate BA programme is obtained and considered in different ways in each institution according to its own arrangements and there is no standard pattern required. Students are able to communicate their views through their representation on a range of committees, via consultation concerning curriculum changes and through informal meetings with the Berlin pathway leader. The German students the audit team met in Cambridge and in Berlin confirmed the accessibility of the pathway leader in the UK, and their representation on the course committee in Cambridge. At FHW, issues of concern to students are raised with the Programme Leader since there are no formal avenues for student feedback.
41 Student feedback for the MBA is obtained via twice yearly Course Board meetings held in Berlin and attended by staff and student representatives. Staff from APU do not attend. Students told the audit team that change sometimes resulted from their suggestions but this might take time. Module evaluation questionnaires were introduced in 1997 and although the response rate was initially low both partners considered them now to be effective. They are analysed in the MBA office in Berlin. The team heard evidence to support the claim that appropriate action is taken as necessary to maintain and improve quality. The AMRs communicated to the University provide an account of the process but not the issues identified by students. The team could find no evidence to indicate that summaries of the questionnaire data or course board minutes had been reported to APU. The University may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate in the context of its franchised programmes to have more direct information relating to student views of their learning.
42 The University carries out quinquennial reviews of its established collaborative programmes. The audit team was able to see a report of the review of the franchise of the MBA programme and found it to be a thorough process with appropriate outcomes in the form of a report with recommendations and conditions which were duly considered by the relevant senior committee. However, as noted above (see above, paragraph 24) the team was unclear as to the effectiveness of follow-up to conditions set out in the report of the panel.
Staffing and staff development
43 The audit team was told that the University has now tightened up its procedures for new partnerships such that staff are approved at validation and any subsequent changes are notified back to the University. Staff and personnel matters at FHW were clearly viewed by the University as outwith APU's control as far as the teaching of the undergraduate BA programme was concerned. It was made clear to the team that in any case the staffing has been on the whole very stable for both of the programmes over the period of the partnership. For the franchised MBA, staff CVs were presented as part of the validation process but the team was informed that there is no system in place for monitoring staff changes - 'custom and practice precedes formal arrangements'. FHW has its own specifications and standards for the appointment of teaching staff. The team noted that FHW was unclear as to the University's requirements, if any, with respect to ongoing monitoring of staff changes. The University may wish to consider whether it should have a more formal record of staff responsible for teaching on its collaborative programmes.
44 While there was clearly a high level of useful informal contact and advice in the context of staff visits, the audit team was able to find little evidence of a systematic approach to staff development support for either programme. Although there had undoubtedly been close communication with senior staff at FHW in the shape of guidance and support for meeting the University's quality assurance requirements for the MBA, the team considered that further attention might usefully be paid to creating staff development opportunities at subject level, as might be expected for a franchise. This perspective was strengthened by the views of staff at FHW involved with both of the APU programmes, who found that there had been virtually no interaction with their peers at the University, and expressed some frustration at the lack of opportunities for study visits or staff exchanges. The University may therefore wish to consider ways in which stronger links between teaching staff, together with joint staff development opportunities would enhance the programmes in this partnership, and also contribute to the underpinning of equivalence of standards.
Provision of information to and support for students
45 The students on the BA programme met by the audit team in Cambridge and in Berlin were very satisfied with the general information provided to them from APU and it was very apparent that they had benefited from a clear explanation about the modules they would be taking, preceding their arrival at APU. They told the team that they were provided with two handbooks and a special one for assessment. The team saw copies of a commendably informative newsletter compiled by the APU programme leader for students at FHW. Students seemed well-informed on issues relating to the APU degree classification and to their rights of appeal.
46 The audit team was interested to explore the arrangements for student placements at APU and FHW in the context of the BA programme, given the importance of work experience in the dual award. The University produced comprehensive guidance documents for students on placement, and other information packs and surveys to support the process. It also received regular annual reports on placements as a part of its review procedures. On the basis of the documentary evidence provided, the team considered that both the support for students in finding placements and that provided during their placements was of a high quality. This was confirmed by the students who were complimentary about the placement officer and arrangements in place to help them find placements at APU and even upon return to FHW. Staff in Berlin told the team that APU is in effect responsible for placements for both awards, including many of the placements in Germany. The team also heard that whereas all students would be visited while on placement in the UK, this was not often feasible in Germany because students are viewed there as employees of the firm. As a result a compromise had been agreed whereby in Germany only those students on placements arranged by APU are visited. While this seemed to the team to open up the possibility of some unevenness in the treatment of students, in general the University is to be commended on the high quality of the support for students in providing and supporting placements.
47 Students following the BA programme have developed a flourishing student organisation, the European Business Association, Cambridge (EBAC). EBAC has established links with major employers, which include visits and company support for skills training. The association has its own web site which was clearly an asset to student communication and to the promotion of the programme as a whole. The initiative has received positive support from the University and from members of the staff team. The audit team heard a number of positive references to the association and its activities during the audit which indicated its success, and would commend the University on its support for this student initiative.
48 Students on the MBA receive a full and informative handbook prepared by staff at FHW on the basis of the one issued at APU. FHW also provides its own induction programme based on that of the University programme. The audit team was told by University staff that students should certainly be clear about their rights because 'they get clear information from the Fachhochschule'. In general this was confirmed, however the team found that some students were not entirely clear about whether they were following two sets of regulations or one set which had been merged. The University will wish to make it clear to students on the MBA where its own regulations apply.
Student progression to the UK
49 Students in Cambridge informed the audit team that the transition in their studies between Germany and Britain was well-managed with regard to continuity and that all of the student needs were met, for example regarding language support and accommodation requirements. They said that most of the support for the transition had come from the APU side, and this included two visits to Germany by the pathway leader to prepare them. The team were only able to meet one English student, who had found the transition to Berlin difficult for language reasons. Students who had returned from Cambridge to Berlin reported that the year abroad had helped to engender a strong group identity.
50 In general, the audit team found a good level of communication and liaison supporting the delivery of the two programmes, and the information provided to students was helpful and comprehensive. The quality of informal and formal communication and support was confirmed by students, who were very appreciative of the time and effort given by University staff.
Academic standards
Admissions
51 Students applying for the undergraduate programme do so through the relevant institution's normal admissions routes. Senior staff at APU explained that where students commence the course at FHW, they are not technically regarded as registered APU students until they arrive for the second year of the course, bringing with them the credit from year 1 in order to secure Socrates funding. The audit team was interested to understand why some German students opted to start their studies at APU and was told that this was due to a number of factors, including which institution had recruited the students and the wish of some students to avoid the more demanding selection tests in Berlin where recruitment was more competitive. Recently, the UK position on student fees had changed the balance of advantage in this area, to the disappointment of the German students.
52 For the MBA programme, FHW is currently approved to recruit a maximum of 50 students in any year. 25 students holding first degrees or equivalent in non-business subjects may be admitted direct to Stage 1, and 25 holding specified business or economics-related prior qualifications at degree level may be admitted direct to Stage 2. The MBA has an annual information day in Berlin attended by the APU pathway leader. The programme has proved to be attractive to German part-time students, with currently eight applicants for each place. The admissions requirements are spelt out clearly to prospective students, after which applications are vetted by FHW staff within specified criteria. The audit team was told that the admissions process is administered by FHW but that they operate according to criteria agreed with APU. This was confirmed in Berlin where the point was made that APU could examine the records held at FHW if this was required. Whilst the team had no reason to doubt the exacting standards of the FHW admissions system, it would invite the University to consider whether such a 'hands off' approach to a franchised programme is consistent with the Code.
Language of delivery and assessment
53 The BA programme is delivered in either English or German depending on the location of study, all students working in both languages. The current position is that the programme caters overwhelmingly for students whose first language is German, although some of these may elect to start their studies at APU. Despite the attractiveness of the programme, the University has not been able to recruit sufficient UK students with a suitable level of German language proficiency. The audit team heard that both the partner institutions and the students following the programme are concerned about the difficulty in recruiting British students on the programme because international experience of all students is more limited as a result. This view is balanced by the value placed by German students on studying for part of their time in Cambridge and gaining practical work experience in English speaking companies.
54 The BA programme students informed the audit team that the fact that the course is bilingual is 'very useful and good for employment'. In Berlin the students are taught and assessed mainly but not exclusively in German, and in Cambridge they study and are assessed in English. The students felt that they would have benefited even more in this respect if there had been more English students on the course. As the BA programme is in effect delivered under independent control at each of the partner institutions, and the students can work bilingually, the University had identified no issues arising relating to assessment, moderation or examining in the foreign language. Nevertheless, the fact remains that its students were experiencing a substantial amount of learning and assessment in a foreign language in which the University has a very limited capacity for carrying out any monitoring or moderation. While the audit team identified no problems in this respect, it believed that the University should consider more actively the implications of any collaboration in which a substantial amount of the programme was delivered in a language other than English.
55 With regard to the franchised MBA, the audit team was told that about one third of the course at FHW is delivered in English and that there would be concern if it fell below 20 per cent. In any case German legislation is likely to require that over a third of the programme is delivered in English in order to meet the expected requirements for international degrees. However, the fact that the majority of teaching and assessment is delivered in German does again have implications for any moderation of assessed work by the University. It also raises issues where an external assessor may not be fluent in German (see below, paragraph 66). The University will need to consider how it can be more secure in monitoring the standards of achievement of students on franchised awards who are taught and assessed in a foreign language.
The assessment of students
56 Assessment of students for the BA award operates according to the principle of mutual recognition whereby FHW accepts marks from APU and vice versa. As is common with European dual award programmes, the grades are translated using an equivalence scale. Discussion and review of the equivalence of standards between the two academic cultures regularly takes place, and, for example, the audit team were told at FHW that the marks for the level 4 dissertations for those students who opt to stay in Cambridge to complete their German Diplom award are compared with those who complete their studies in Berlin. The practice of providing two dissertation tutors, one from each institution, is a helpful strategy in this respect.
57 The two institutions classify their awards under different regulations, and consequently final results for the two awards may differ with regard to grade and classification. Students were fully informed and aware of these differences but were less sure about the conversion of grades between Germany and the UK. The audit team noted with some interest that the number of first class degree awards on the BA had grown from two per cent to 42 per cent over a period of six years. A very high percentage of students on the Berlin pathway were achieving First Class and Upper Second Class honours (98 per cent in 2001). All the students who had been awarded first class degrees had been recruited at FHW. The team noted that this pattern of achievement had, quite properly, been analysed in considerable detail by the University, both in the reports of the pathway leader and in discussion in the senior committees, including its International Monitoring Committee. These reviews had concluded that the pattern was due to the increasingly high calibre of German students. It was clear to the team that FHW were able to select students of a very high standard, and in the University many staff commented on the outstanding commitment and performance of the students on the Berlin pathway.
58 The audit team met with German students in Berlin who expressed the view that the BA award was perhaps slightly less demanding and operating with different demands to those of a German university degree because it is shorter in length and British higher education is more generalist and practical in nature. They perceived the assessments undertaken at FHW to be 'harder' and considered that the programme could be more challenging and provide greater opportunity for specialist routes. On the other hand, German students met by the team at APU considered that the differences were more about orientation than standards, the German perspective to business education being more theoretical while the UK approach was more pragmatic and case study led. All students considered that a major attraction of the BA programme was that they could obtain a dual award in four years.
59 For the MBA award, FHW staff are responsible for setting the assessments and for marking them. Although FHW is expected to submit the assessment questions for prior scrutiny by the University, the audit team learnt that this had not generally happened in practice and was described by senior staff at FHW as being a 'permanent difficulty'. Until recently there has been no system for any internal moderation of assessed work at FHW. The team was informed that a version of double marking, akin to peer review, has recently been initiated at FHW in anticipation of it being introduced by German educational legislation. However, the external assessor's report for 2001 indicated that double marking had happened only for failed scripts. The team found the University had only a limited input to the assessment strategy for the award, and considered that its involvement, particularly with regard to the moderation of assessment, was considerably less than would normally be appropriate for a franchised programme.
60 In line with German national practice, FHW places greater emphasis on oral presentations in assessment than is required by APU. The Commentary stated that presentational skills were only required to be tested in one area of the MBA programme but that FHW uses them more widely. Although some steps have been taken to provide standard evaluation forms for assessing presentations, the external assessor has indicated over a period of three years that more detailed evidence about presentation marks should be made available. Attempts to video student presentations have proved unsuccessful but represent the willingness of FHW to try to find a solution. The audit team believed that in these circumstances the University should give more thorough consideration to the question of equivalence in assessment methods and standards within the framework of the MBA programme. If it is then thought appropriate to retain a high level of assessment through oral presentation, the University should ensure that the assessments can be managed with an appropriate level of accountability.
61 Through the reports of its appointed external assessor, the University had evidence that the MBA students perform to the standard of students on comparable courses at APU and in the UK. MBA student results are checked at APU to see that they are line with the overall pattern of results for all students on the APU programme, and their work was described to the audit team as being of a very high standard, in some cases 'awesome'. The team noted that FHW does not see any comparative data on the performance of other MBA students receiving the University's award.
62 Students on both programmes raised concerns about the lack of feedback on assessments from APU staff. Undergraduate students in Berlin told the audit team that delays in the return of assignments had been a recurring issue for a number of years and that they had also raised issues about consistency of marking at APU. MBA students also expressed some concerns about the lack of clarity on expected standards of assessments although they are provided with assessment criteria for each module. They felt that it would have been helpful to have a clearer picture of the assessment standards of the programme as a whole.
63 Taken overall, the assessment procedures for the franchised MBA did not appear to the audit team to be entirely under the control of APU. Both partners considered this to be a consequence of cultural differences which have created some tensions in the development of the franchise. The team was informed that in large part greater academic freedom in Germany and the relative autonomy of academics in assessing students have been obstacles to the strict observance of APU requirements. Senior staff at FHW explained that this was not a matter of not being clear about APU requirements but of finding them difficult to implement. They told the team that due to changes taking place in Germany they were now more open to developing learning outcomes and the required assessment practices. Staff at APU acknowledged that perhaps they could have been firmer in their management of the assessment of MBA students, something with which the team concurred. The University will therefore wish to consider how a greater level of standard practice in assessment strategy, together with more robust monitoring and accountability could be introduced, so that it can be confident in the assessment for its franchised award.
External examiners and examination board arrangements
64 The University considers that its general arrangements for appointing its external examiners (titled external assessors at APU) are robust and effectively overseen by a sub-committee of QASC. The procedures are laid out in a comprehensive section of the Quality Assurance Handbook, prepared by the Academic Office. The University's view was that 'we have tight requirements and we ensure that they are met'. Nevertheless, the Commentary explained that there were 'interesting debates' about the appointment of external assessors to the undergraduate programme in the early stages of the partnership. The audit team was told that initial reluctance, which had been a 'serious obstacle', had over time given way to FHW seeing the value of externals. The team found that, both in the Commentary and in its own discussions with senior staff at the two institutions, there was a frank and open discussion of the differences in academic culture relating to external assessors. It was also clear to the team that advice and support had over time led to a greater level of confidence and acceptance, although, as noted below, the external assessor arrangements continued to present some difficulties.
65 In 1995, with the separation of quality and standards responsibilities and recognition of credit, the external assessors with overall responsibility for the BA programme delivered at APU assumed responsibility for the Berlin Pathway, and there was no external directly associated with the assessment elements at FHW. The Commentary explained that, as the Berlin Pathway is a constituent element of a large undergraduate modular programme, external assessors are not expected to comment on individual pathways, but rather focus on the level of the module. Consistent with the German system of higher education, FHW itself has no external examiner arrangements, its assessment procedures being monitored by the State agency. APU has the right of attendance at FHW examination boards but the team was told this right is not used and similarly FHW staff do not attend the board at APU. In effect, the outcome of these arrangements is that the University cannot have a full overview of the assessments which contribute to its BA award, nor does it involve any external directly in the assessment of its students following the parts of the degree delivered at FHW. While recognising the force of the arguments for the mutual recognition of assessment outcomes in mature institutions, the audit team believed that the University should consider carefully whether the current arrangements allowed it to work appropriately within the expectations of the Code and the general requirements for the full assurance of its own awards. The team consequently also encourages the University to consider whether it would be helpful to have a stronger level of cross-representation in assessment processes and examination boards within its dual award arrangements, particularly in view of its plans for a dual award MBA operating along similar lines.
66 With regard to the MBA programme, the University drew attention to some difficulties in relation to the current external assessor, who also acts as external for the University's MBA programme pathway offered in Valencia. The Commentary pointed out that whereas this afforded some comparability of standards across the two franchised programmes, it placed the assessor at 'a relative disadvantage' because that person lacked fluency in German. The audit team noted the frustration expressed in the external assessor's reports, which in 2001 repeated concerns that had been voiced in previous reports about the problems incurred through the assessor's lack of competence in the German language which prevented access to the student assignments written in German. The external also repeated a request for copies of assignments to be forwarded with the sample of work in advance of the board of examiners' meeting and accompanied by assessment criteria, which had apparently not previously happened. The team regarded this situation as most unsatisfactory and considered that the University should have addressed it more promptly. Fortunately, AIBS had recently been able to move to appoint another external from a UK university who has the necessary subject background and who can work in German. The team was informed that external assessor reports are sent to the Academic Office, and then to the Dean of AIBS, then copied to the Deputy Dean and the pathway leader who ensure that appropriate action is taken by FHW. Staff at FHW confirmed that they were required to respond to the external assessor's reports. The University may wish to take the opportunity of the appointment of a new external assessor for the programme to consider carefully whether the current arrangements fully meet its own requirements.
67 For the MBA, a combined assessment panel and Awards Board meets at FHW on an annual basis to consider the outcomes for each stage, and to make recommendations for the parent Awards Board for Management Development at APU, which confirms the results along with those for the other MBA pathways. The two boards are both chaired by the Deputy Dean of AIBS, providing for continuity of information and communication. The Awards Board at FHW is also attended by the University's external assessor, the APU pathway leader and the APU administrator, and is held in English. From the evidence made available to it, the audit team considered that these examination board arrangements were sound.
Conclusions
68 The collaborative partnership between Anglia Polytechnic University and the Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft, Berlin offers a dual award for the BA European Business/Diplom Kaufmann and a franchised part-time MBA. The Fachhochschule is a major State institution in Berlin, with a strong record of success in curriculum innovation and recruitment. The collaboration and the development of both programmes has been progressing for more than ten years. During this period strong academic relationships have been built up with a shared experience of delivering the programmes, and the teams of academic and administrative staff have remained stable. This has facilitated the growth of an institutional relationship characterised by high levels of mutual trust and recognition of each other's tradition, experience, and different approaches to quality assurance. Nevertheless, from time to time and in some areas, cultural differences in academic practice have been an issue in the management of the partnership.
69 Both the dual award programme and the MBA have proved to be attractive to students recruited in Germany, offering them an international perspective in their studies and good employment prospects. The weak recruitment of UK students onto the dual award programme is regarded by both the partner institutions and the students following the programme as regrettable. Amongst the good features of the dual award identified in this audit are the general organisation of study opportunities in both the UK and in Germany, the excellent information and support provided to German students studying at the University, the well-organised placements, and the support provided by APU to develop a flourishing student organisation which fosters contact with companies. The MBA programme offers a flexible mode of study and is appreciated by students for the practically based nature of the curriculum and the opportunity that it affords them to obtain a UK award.
70 It was evident in the audit that the terms of engagement between the partners have been a combination of informal liaison and an increasing attention to formal requirements. For its part the University has progressively improved its quality assurance systems and its efforts to impart these to its partner, whilst still remaining in some respects liberal about their design and implementation. The University has found it necessary to persuade the Fachhochschule of the benefits of some of the more formal demands placed upon it in the partnership, and the Fachhochschule has become increasingly responsive to these requirements. The external examiner system has been one such instance. The audit found that appropriate formal systems were now in place in relation to the monitoring and review of the franchised MBA programme, with a good standard of annual and periodic review reports. For the undergraduate dual award, the University has moved to an arrangement for the mutual recognition of credit based on learning outcomes. This affords a high level of autonomy to the partner provider, which is unusual in collaborative partnerships.
71 In spite of the many positive developments in the partnership, the audit found that the University did not appear to have a complete grip on a range of issues relating to the assessment of students. These standards-related issues had been in existence for some time, had been notified by external examiners and students, were well-understood by University staff and had been noted in the University's own monitoring and review processes. While the audit recognised that these were sometimes sensitive matters within the international context of this partnership, it found that the University could have been firmer and more active in supporting its partner in meeting the University's requirements for the management of assessment. For its franchised MBA award, the University will need to address fully the arrangements for the assessment of oral presentations, the implications for the external examiner of the language of assessment, and the expressed student concerns relating to feedback on assignments. The University must also consider carefully how, within the context of the undergraduate dual award programme, it can continue to be completely secure that it is gaining the necessary overview of the student experience, achievement and assessment results leading to its own degree award.
72 Notwithstanding the strong and well-established links between the partner institutions at a senior level, the audit found that there is scope for some improvement in the subject links between tutors and in the shared responsibility for the development of subject staff. A fuller exchange of key quality and standards information between staff at all levels would also help to underpin the equivalence of standards of the programmes, whether operated as a dual award or as a franchise.
73 Overall it is considered that the University's collaborative arrangement with the Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft Berlin is fundamentally sound. The audit was able broadly to substantiate the University's reliance upon the quality of a long-standing academic relationship, and in particular it recognised the firm basis in trust, the maturity and reputation of the partner institution, the attractiveness of the programmes in the German context, the high quality of student recruitment and the excellent achievements of students. There is nevertheless a risk that the level of assurance provided by these positive features can lead to an inappropriate relaxation of the safeguards which the University must provide for the students registered for its own awards. In this respect, the audit showed that there remains scope for strengthening and improvement in a number of areas. On balance, however, the demonstrated strengths of the relationship justified broad confidence in the University's stewardship, in this context, of the quality and standards of the awards made in its name.
Top