Preface
In August 1999 the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) wrote to all UK higher education institutions requesting information on their overseas collaborative provision in Egypt and Cyprus. On the basis of the information returned to QAA by institutions, together with information collected in the course of previous UK and overseas audits, QAA proposed a programme of audits of partnerships between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Egypt and in Cyprus.
Each of the UK institutions selected for audit was asked to provide a Commentary on its arrangements which would describe the collaborative link, making reference to the extent to which it was considered to be representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, or was specific to its collaborative activities in Egypt and Cyprus. Each institution was also asked to provide a view of the effectiveness of the means by which it assured itself of the quality of the learning opportunities and student support offered through this overseas link and to offer its view of the effectiveness of the means by which it assures itself of the standards of awards gained through this overseas link.
The guidance provided by QAA to UK institutions preparing such a Commentary referred them to the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education, 1996 (the HEQC Code) and invited them to discuss in their Commentary the degree to which the arrangements they operated was congruent with the guidelines set out in the HEQC Code. The guidance also referred to the recently published QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision, due to come into effect in autumn 2000.
The UK institutions were asked to list the sources and nature of the evidence on which they relied to assure themselves that the quality of the educational provision leading to their awards (or awards for which they had responsibilities) was meeting their requirements and expectations, and that the standard of the relevant awards were being safeguarded. Institutions were asked to make this evidence available to the QAA audit team on the occasion of its visit (see below).
The audits were conducted by a team of academic auditors and an audit secretary appointed by QAA. Each Commentary was scrutinised by the audit team, together with accompanying information, and discussed at a briefing meeting convened for the purpose. On the basis of the information in the Commentaries and associated documents, the team proposed a programme of meetings for its visits to the UK and overseas partners, and requested additional information to be made available by the UK institution in its base room for the duration of that visit.
Following its discussions with members of each UK institution and drawing on the information provided, the audit team drafted an interim report of its findings to support the visit to the relevant partner institutions in Egypt and Cyprus and to assist it to prepare a report on the findings of the audit of the partnership as a whole.
The members of the audit team were: Professor P W Bush, Professor J Cowan, Dr S Jackson, Dr A Saul and Ms S Haselgrove, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate, who also accompanied the team on its UK and overseas visits for QAA.
Foreword
1 This is the report of an academic audit carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between Bournemouth University (the University) and the College of Tourism and Hotel Management, Nicosia (CTHM) to deliver a one-year programme of studies leading to the award of a BA Hospitality Management, augmenting studies undertaken at CTHM. QAA is grateful to the University and its partner for their willing cooperation throughout the audit process.
Method and process
2 The visit to the University took place on
2-3 March 2000. In the course of the visit, members of the audit team scrutinised
the materials made available in the base room set aside for the purpose and held
discussions with 14 members of the University's staff, some on more than one
occasion. They included the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic); the Head of Academic
Development and Quality; the Head of the School of Service Industries (the School);
senior members of University and School Staff; and staff with teaching, administrative
and liaison roles in relation to the franchised programme. The members of the
team who visited the University were Professor P W Bush and
Dr A Saul, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary, accompanied by Dr D W
Cairns. Following this visit the University wrote to QAA with further information
on the operation of its link with its partner (see below, paragraphs 49 to 51).
3 In October 1999, the University was the subject of a QAA continuation audit, for which it had prepared an Analytical Account (the Account) which, inter alia, addressed the University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative provision. By agreement with the University this document was provided by QAA to members of the audit team to inform the present audit (see below, paragraph 12).
4 The audit team visited CTHM in Cyprus on
16 May 2000. On this occasion the members of the team were Professor P W Bush,
Professor J Cowan and
Dr S Jackson, auditors; and Mr R A Platt, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns again
accompanied the team for QAA. In the course of the visit the team met the Director
and founder of CTHM (also referred to as the Principal), and staff with teaching
and administrative responsibilities for supporting the delivery of the University's
programme. The team also met a number of students following the University's
programme at CTHM. Altogether, the team met more than 20 members of CTHM, some
on more than one occasion.
5 For the visit to CTHM, and on their own initiative, the partners arranged for further documentary information to be provided for the audit team, and the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor travelled to Cyprus to conduct further meetings with the team during the visit. In response to specific enquiries during this latter visit, the University provided additional information after the team had returned to the UK (see below, paragraph 95).
6 The audit team wishes to record its appreciation for the readiness of all those whom it met at the University and on its visit to CTHM, to make time to meet it to discuss the University's arrangements to assure the quality of the franchised provision and the academic standard of the award of the University and openness with which the University approached the provision of information for the audit.
The University's Commentary on its partnership with CTHM
7 As a basis for the audit the University prepared a Commentary, helpfully organised in line with advice on such documents provided by QAA. Areas addressed by the Commentary included, the institutional context for collaboration with CTHM; the University's links with CTHM; quality assurance arrangements; measures to safeguard the academic standard of the University's award; and the learning infrastructure provided to support the work of students.
8 The Commentary provided a helpful guide to the University's approach
to assuring the quality of its collaborative provision overseas and an
informative account of many aspects of its partnership with CTHM. It was
cross-referenced to documents in the base room, which also contained a
wide range of material relevant to the partnership with CTHM. The Commentary
placed the link with CTHM in the context of the University's commitment
to international activities, and within the framework of its arrangements
for quality assurance. However, scrutiny of the University's materials
in its base room showed that the account of the development of the link
with CTHM provided in the Commentary was in some respects incomplete.
A further Commentary on this report, provided by the University, is attached
as appendix 1.
The University context for collaborative provision
9 Since the HEQC quality audit of the University in 1994 there has been a significant expansion of its collaborative provision, both within the United Kingdom and overseas (see below, paragraph 12). The University's Strategic Plan 1999-2009 includes within its Vision Statement a commitment to the furtherance of 'excellent international networks and capability'; a key element of its Mission is identified as 'collaboration with regional, national and international partners'; and its strategic targets encompass extending 'its network of international partnerships, giving profile and reach to the University's courses, including achieving a 15 per cent year on year increase in the numbers of students studying to the University's award overseas for the period of the plan'. Within the Strategic Plan, the University's Values underpinning this commitment to internationalisation include the recognition and encouragement of 'the internationalisation of many aspects of its work' and a recognition that 'an international dimension is central to its distinctive Mission'.
10 The University's strategic priorities in the internationalisation of its work include the development of 'collaborative links with international providers of higher education who have similar Missions to our own' and ensuring that 'the development of new, as well as existing, collaborative international relationships takes place with a strong commitment to affirm quality and promote improvement, ensuring comparability of approach and treatment'. Specific priorities for 1999-2000 include reviewing the 'University's organisational capability to develop and sustain international activities' and the development of 'further collaborative links with agreed target regions...and countries'.
The Mission and Vision of the School of Service Industries
11 Within the framework provided by the University's Strategic Plan the Mission of the School, set out in its Strategic Plan for the corresponding period, is to become 'the leading international academic centre for the service sectors of food, hospitality, retail, tourism, leisure and land based industries'. The Strategic Plan identifies the School's Vision as to be 'internationally recognised as a world class School sought out by industry, governments, non-governmental bodies, academic institutions, professional and national bodies'. This Vision is to be achieved, in part, through 'an extensive network of strategic partnerships that through the alliances and use of alumni, [will] influence the thinking of industries, government and international agencies'. The construction of 'a network of industrial, professional and academic partnerships both nationally and internationally' is judged by the School to be of critical importance for its future success. According to the Strategic Plan the School has achieved 'the rapid development of its international capability through strategic partnerships and alliances'.
QAA continuation audit 1999
12 As noted earlier, in October 1999 QAA conducted a continuation audit of the University. The report of that audit was published in May 2000 (the 2000 report) but a draft of the report, and the University's responses to it, were provided for the present audit team with the University's knowledge. Within the context of an expansion in the University's overseas activities the published 2000 report stated that 'the School of Service Industries has particularly strong links with overseas institutions and has developed the majority of international partnerships'. The 2000 report also stated that while 'the University was adopting a careful and measured approach to the development and management of its collaborative provision...there was reason for concern about the capacity of the University's current structures and procedures to assure quality of provision and effective central oversight of an expanded portfolio of partnerships particularly overseas'. The 2000 report also stated that 'the University's planned expansion of collaborative provision, particularly overseas would require continuing vigilance in respect of the oversight of academic standards'. Among other matters, the 2000 report recommended that the University should consider the advisability of 'strengthening the institutional oversight of collaborative activities, with particular attention to the monitoring of the publicity and documentation produced by partner institutions, the guidance provided to, and further development and coordination of the work of, Link Tutors, and the provision of a mechanism for ensuring that the University is consulted about the appointment of staff teaching on its courses'. The 2000 report also recommended that 'in the light of its expanding portfolio of overseas collaborative activities' it would be advisable for the University to continue 'to give attention to the development of an institutional locus of responsibility for overseas partnerships and to exercise continuing vigilance in respect of the management of academic standards'. The University informed the present audit team that since the continuation audit some changes had been put in hand, for example, in relation to strengthening the University's International Office.
The University's approach to collaborative provision
13 The University considers that within the range of its collaborative links in the UK and further afield, there is no single model or type, but rather a series of 'clusters' of links, with quality assurance arrangements within each cluster displaying a number of common features. The School views its links with centres offering undergraduate awards in Hospitality and Tourism as forming one such cluster. The School's link with its partner in Cyprus, CTHM, was described by staff of the former as representative of others within its cluster of undergraduate links in Hospitality and Tourism. The School has 11 links overseas in total, involving four programmes at undergraduate level and eight at master's level. The University's link with CTHM since 1996 constitutes its only partnership in Cyprus.
Quality assurance manual: Academic Policies Regulations and Procedures
14 The University considers that its Academic Policies Regulations and Procedures (1998) (generally known throughout the University as the Blue Book) 'defines institutional policies and procedures for the management and assurance of academic standards and quality in all programmes leading to its awards, wherever delivered'. The Commentary stated that the 'approval, monitoring and review of the University's collaborative provision follows the same pattern as for its campus-based programmes' but with added safeguards at University and School level. At University level, 'internal audit of Annual Reports on Course Monitoring (IAARCM), which operates on a sampling basis for campus-based provision, is applied to all partnership courses'; additionally, the School considers that its designation of a single Link Tutor to be responsible for all its overseas links underpins consistency of quality assurance between programmes. The work of the University's IAARCM arrangements are considered in paragraph 34 below, and the work of School's Link Tutor is discussed in paragraph 36, below.
The University's links with the College of Tourism and Hotel Management
15 CTHM was founded in 1987. The Commentary described it as 'the only institution of Higher Education in Cyprus specialising in tourism and hospitality' and stated that it was a private institution registered and licensed by the Cyprus Ministry of Education to offer tertiary education in programmes leading to degrees and higher diplomas. It is managed through a Board of Trustees which represents the owners, including one of the largest hotel and travel groups operating in Cyprus. The educational and training work of the College is supported by 13 full-time and 10 part-time academic staff and 13 administrative staff.
16 At the time of the audit, the Commentary stated that 303 students were registered as studying at CTHM, distributed across three academic programmes: a two year Diploma in Travel and Tourism Administration; a three year Higher Diploma in Hotel Administration; and a one year 'top-up' course, leading to the University's BA in Hospitality Management. Both Diplomas were formally accredited by the Cyprus Council of Educational Evaluation - Accreditation of Programmes of Study of Private Institutions of Tertiary Education (CEE) for four years from January 2000, following successful visits during the previous two years.
17 A full statement of the legal and regulatory context which applies to private higher education institutions and to providers of higher education from outwith Cyprus, operating within the Republic of Cyprus, is set out in appendix 2 to this report.
Establishment of the partnership
18 The University's partnership with CTHM was established in 1996. Prior to that date the Commentary stated that CTHM had been known to staff of the School as a base for undergraduate fieldwork, and that this had given the School 'a detailed knowledge of the background and structure of CTHM including its ownership'. The Director of CTHM told the audit team that in 1996 he had independently been seeking to establish a degree-awarding relationship with a UK university and that the interests of the prospective partners had coincided. The Commentary stated that a senior member of the School had subsequently visited CTHM to extend the University's knowledge of its prospective partner and to help CTHM to produce the documentation required as part of the University's evaluation and approval process. This documentation included: a Partner Profile; a Faculty Manual; staff CVs; a definitive course document; and details of Library provision.
19 In February 1996 the Vice-Chancellor gave her consent for discussion with CTHM to proceed towards 'the validation of a franchise agreement for BA Hospitality Management in Cyprus'. The Commentary stated that the March 1996 evaluation event had been informed by the HEQC Code, first published in October 1995, and that the University was 'committed to following the QAA Code of practice for overseas collaboration (1999) in its entirety'.
Evaluation of the context for the proposed franchise, March 1996
20 An evaluation event was conducted by the University at CTHM in March 1996, following the procedures set out in the Blue Book. The event was chaired by a member of the University's Quality Assurance and Enhancement Group (QAEG), and the membership of the visiting University panel included a representative from its Academic Development and Quality Office, referred to throughout the University as ADQ. The purpose of the visit was twofold. First to consider whether satisfactory completion of the Advanced Diploma in Hotel Management, provided at CTHM, would provide a satisfactory basis for entry with advanced standing to the final year of the University's BA Hospitality Management and second, to consider the proposal to franchise the final year of the BA Hospitality Management to CTHM with a proposed start date of September 1996.
21 The University's panel met with the Director and teaching staff at CTHM
and, according to the record of the visit, toured teaching accommodation,
Library and computing facilities, met final year students on the Higher
Diploma, observed the operation of the student records system and considered
examples of student work and examination papers. The University's panel
recommended the approval of the Higher Diploma as suitable to provide entry
to Year 3 of the BA Hospitality Management. At the same time, the panel
assigned
240 credits to the Higher Diploma and recommended approval of the franchise of
Year 3 of the BA Hospitality Management to CTHM.
22 In the record of its visit the panel 'noted that, in accordance with
Cypriot Law, the BA programme had been approved by the Cypriot Government.
Any changes to the programme would necessitate
re-submission' (see Appendix 1, paragraphs 3 and 4). The University told the
audit team that the knowledge on which this statement was based had come from
its partner, and had not been independently checked. The University has since
recognised that it might have been unwise to place sole reliance on an interested
party when gathering information, and informed the team that it had improved
its arrangements for establishing the status of potential partners (see below,
paragraph 25).
23 The meetings of the University's Academic Standards Committee (ASC) in May 1996 and the subsequent meeting of Senate, in June 1996, agreed to a recommendation that the University proceed with the link with CTHM. The University's procedures in 1996 did not require a formal consideration and approval of a prospective partner's financial standing. Such a requirement was subsequently added to the University's procedures although the University's arrangements for checking the legal context for a proposed partnership do not appear to have been augmented at the time of the audit. The University told the audit team that if the financial position of CTHM changed significantly, for example through a change of ownership, a formal review of the organisation's financial position would be required before the signature of a new memorandum of agreement. Recognising that several of its partnerships date from the same period as that with CTHM, the University might now wish to satisfy itself, for each instance of its overseas collaborative provision, independently of any actual or potential partner organisation, of the legal context for the link and the status of its partner or partners.
24 The University reviewed its Hospitality Management courses as a whole
in May 1997
(see below, paragraph 53). In the course of the review, new programmes of study
and award titles were approved, but it was agreed that 'the BA Hospitality Management
course...[be]...retained at CTHM to follow its full term of approval'. At the
time of the audit the programme in Bournemouth leading to the University's BA
Hospitality Management was being phased out.
The formal agreement between the University and CTHM
25 A formal agreement relating to the provision of courses at CTHM, leading to academic awards by the University, was signed on its behalf - subject to the formal approval of Senate - by the Head of the School and by the Director of CTHM in March 1996, two days before the completion of the evaluation event referred to in paragraph 20; it remained in force at the time of the audit. It appeared to the audit team that the procedure the University had followed had abridged Senate's academic authority. To avoid this possibility the signature of a formal agreement for a partnership link is now debarred by the University until there has been a proper opportunity for the Vice-Chancellor, acting as Chair of Senate, to approve the terms of the agreement.
26 The formal agreement covers financial arrangements as well as principles relating to academic provision, standards and quality, and sets out the responsibilities of each partner. Under its terms, the University and CTHM agreed 'to cooperate to obtain recognition for the Courses from all relevant national and international organisations' and the University recognised 'the authority of the Principal of CTHM in the selection of students, their registration, the promotion of the Course and staffing arrangements'. CTHM for its part acknowledged 'that the University will be responsible for the academic quality and academic direction of the Courses and all matters connected with the oversight of the running thereof' and that publicity material issued by CTHM in relation to the BA Hospitality Management was subject 'to prior written approval of the University'. The agreement also set out the management arrangements for the Bournemouth BA, including the requirement for the appointment of a Link Tutor to liaise between the School and CTHM.
27 The formal agreement between the University and CTHM has no defined term but the Commentary stated that 'the University normally expects such agreements to be reviewed after five years' and that the review of the link with CTHM was scheduled for the 2000-01 session. The Commentary indicated that the review would 'be set in the context of a strengthened central International Office' (see above, paragraph 12) and that, partly in response to the findings of the QAA continuation audit, the University intended to 'strengthen its control over marketing and promotional information, by developing the role of its marketing office in this area'.
28 Two schedules attached to the formal agreement provide, respectively, for the management and operation of the franchised programme at CTHM and financial arrangements. The terms of the first schedule to the formal agreement state that the franchised programme is to be managed by the course team at CTHM, supervised by the course management, the whole overseen by a Management Board, comprising the Head of the School; the leader of the 'parent' degree programme at the University; the leader of the franchised programme at CTHM and an additional senior member of the Cyprus-based staff; and 'one or more appropriate members of staff of the University, appointed by the University'. The schedule states that the Management Board shall 'have competence and authority on all matters affecting the Course in accordance with this Agreement SUBJECT ONLY [sic] to the overall competence and authority of the relevant University's School Committee and...of Senate or other appropriate body of the University'.
Quality assurance of academic provision
29 The University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative
links were described in the Account it had provided for the continuation
audit and in its Commentary. The systems listed in these documents
included arrangements for the initial approval and the validation of the
curriculum (see above, paragraph 20); for annual monitoring (see below,
paragraph 32); for minor changes to units, courses, and assignments
(see below, paragraph 40); and for periodic review
(see below, paragraph 52). As noted earlier, all collaborative links are also
subject to the University's annual internal procedures for auditing its Annual
Reports on Course Monitoring (ARCM) (see below, paragraph 34) and are supported
through the appointment of a Link Tutor (see below, paragraph 36). The University
has also developed an Operations Manual to guide the administration of
the partnership, copies of which were helpfully provided for the audit team.
In respect of each of these, arrangements are set out in the Blue Book and
extended in the helpful Guidance Notes provided for University staff by
ADQ. A description and analysis of the University's quality assurance arrangements
can be found in paragraphs 23-35 of the 2000 report.
Course committee meetings at CTHM
30 In March 1997 the Director of Studies of what was then the University's Department of Food and Hospitality, wrote to the director of CTHM to clarify the need for 'a formal, minuted course committee meeting held at least three times a year...chaired by the local course tutor, attended by the local teaching team, a Bournemouth University staff member and a student representative...[with] a secretary to take minutes' and that the minutes of such meetings 'should be sent to the Bournemouth Course Tutor and posted on the Cyprus Noticeboard'. Advice on these matters was helpfully expanded in the Operations Manual which the University provided for its partner's guidance.
31 The University provided the audit team with access to the minutes of course committee meetings held at CTHM together with reports from members of the School who had attended course committee and examination board meetings in Cyprus. In each case there was evidence to show that meetings of the Cyprus-based course committee took place in line with the advice offered by the Director of Studies, summarised above, whilst statements and information in other School and University papers demonstrated that items of information from CTHM were passed back to the School by members of staff visiting Cyprus (see below, paragraphs 39, 59 and 75). There was also evidence to show that CTHM made effective use of student representatives attending course management meetings, and that student views were collected formally and informally
Annual Reports on Course Monitoring
32 According to the Blue Book, responsibility for the 'quality of a course or academic programme' rests with the team of academic staff who manage and deliver it. Once approved, all University courses are subject to regular monitoring, reported annually through the ARCM to the school, through the relevant school committee. ARCMs are prepared by course leaders, with the assistance of the team of staff associated with the programme. The ARCM is expected to provide a concise self-evaluation of the operation of the relevant course in the previous session, based on standard monitoring data, together with an action plan for the current session. ARCMs are normally scrutinised by a reviewer, acting on behalf of the relevant school committee. On the basis of the reviewer's report, and any subsequent discussions, each school provides an overall summary report (a synoptic report) on its annual course monitoring exercise to ASC, normally at the latter's December meeting.
33 Until the end of the 1997-98 session, annual reports from individual
partnership links administered by the School were incorporated into one
overall ARCM. From the 1998-99 session, however, the University has required
a separate ARCM for each course offered through a partnership arrangement.
Commencing with the annual monitoring cycle in
1998-99, therefore, ARCM reports for the University's programme franchised to
CTHM have been prepared by the Cyprus staff, with guidance from the School. Commenting
on the first ARCM received from CTHM, the School suggested that it was insufficiently
evaluative. In response, the School took steps to provide further staff development
for members of CTHM 'in order to help them to use the ARCM to reflect on and
enhance the quality of their provision'. The audit team noted that from its synoptic
report to ASC for 1998-99, the School had identified for attention in respect
of the BA Hospitality Management at CTHM matters to do with the balance of the
curriculum, Library provision and student ability in relation to the level of
the course (see below, paragraph 64). The University proposes to ensure that
'ARCMs (for both on-campus and partnership courses) will in future report changes
to staffing and resource provision', and that it will use such reports to 'evaluate
the impact of these changes on the quality and standards of provision'.
Internal audit of Annual Reports on Course Monitoring
34 The University's annual IAARCM process is described in the Blue Book. Each IAARCM of a school's educational provision is carried out by a team of two individuals: a member of the University's QAEG from another school, and a member of ADQ. For provision based on its own campuses, IAARCMs 'sample and report on each school's course monitoring processes' and may focus 'on courses which are about to be externally assessed'. University teams conducting IAARCMs operate under a remit which according to the Blue Book gives them authority to review the ARCM documents provided for ASC by schools, and to ask for additional information and documents to extend their understanding of matters. IAARCM teams also conduct meetings with members of the relevant school, who usually include the course leader and a member of the school with quality assurance responsibilities. The outcome of each IAARCM is reported to the relevant school and to ASC at its May meeting. All collaborative provision is subject to annual IAARCM although it appears to be the case that the process followed by the University does not correspond to that set out in the Blue Book (see below, paragraph 48).
35 The University's IAARCM of the School's ARCMs in April 1999 noted in relation to the franchised programme at CTHM a need for clearer action planning and matters related to course delivery and assessment. It further noted difficulty 'in identifying what, if any, action had taken place in response to comments made by the external examiner'. It appeared to the audit team that before the present QAA audit, neither the annual monitoring process nor the IAARCM process had been effective in identifying the matters discussed in paragraphs 40-51 for further inquiry, or for discussion by ASC or other bodies within the University.
The contribution of the Link Tutor and the International Coordinating Development Officer
36 The University's arrangements for the quality assurance of its collaborative links require the appointment of a Link Tutor, to be 'the main point of contact for the partner institution's course leader for all course-related matters; [and to] guide and support the operation of the course'. More particularly, the Link Tutor is expected to oversee admissions and enrolments to the franchised programme; to attend course team meetings and course management meetings held in the partner institution; and to 'monitor the quality of provision' on behalf of the school committee. There are also opportunities for Link Tutors from across the University to meet formally in a Link Tutors' Group, coordinated by ADQ. There are plans to provide more formal guidance on the performance of the Link Tutor role. The School's Link Tutor and its International Coordinating Development Officer (ICDO) therefore play a key part in keeping the University informed of developments in relation to its link with CTHM (see below, paragraph 87).
37 The Commentary stated that as a result of personnel changes within the School, recognition of the volume of work entailed in acting as a Link Tutor, and 'the importance of a common approach in its relations with each franchise operation', the School's Head of International Development and Resources had been appointed to act as the Link Tutor for each of its 11 overseas partnerships since, in practice, 'only one academic can effectively have [the requisite] overall knowledge'. The University represented to the audit team that this arrangement required 'the Link Tutor to work closely with the School's Head of Quality', that the appointment of a Link Tutor kept lines of communication between the University and its partners clear, and that this assisted in the management and quality assurance of the School's links. These arguments are sound; they do not, however, justify the further step taken by the School of placing all its Link Tutor responsibilities in the hands of a single individual. In the particular case of the link with CTHM, this does not appear to have enabled the Link Tutor to keep a sufficiently close check on the link with CTHM to have enabled the identification of the matters referred to, for example, in paragraphs 50 and 59 below. The University may therefore wish to review the School's arrangement for the discharge of Link Tutor responsibilities.
38 The ICDO supports the work of the School's Link Tutor by providing administrative
support for the School's franchised courses, with particular reference
to enrolment, registration, induction and examinations. The Commentary stated
that the 'ICDO normally acts as the first point of reference for any queries
or requests for information from the overseas centres' and that the ICDO
had 'regular contact with all partners and is, therefore, often able to
resolve issues whilst ensuring that the appropriate operational procedures
are
carried out'.
39 The University's papers in the base room showed that routine contact between the institutions is normally between the CTHM Programme Coordinator in Cyprus, and the ICDO on behalf of the Link Tutor, rather than with the Link Tutor directly. The School has also established an Office of International Development, 'to facilitate a more cohesive and coherent approach to all international activities'.
Changes to the Franchised Programme following approval: credit rating and additional modules
40 The University's Commentary described how the University's one-year 'top-up' programme at CTHM had been credit rated within the University's credit accumulation and transfer scheme, and stated that it had a 'non-standard credit structure', in that it had adopted 15-credit units 'rather than the University's normal 10 or 20 credits'. However, in seeking for information on this matter the audit team found significant discrepancies between the information given in the Commentary and the Handbook for the University's BA Hospitality Management at CTHM for 1999-2000. These amounted to the ascription of different credit ratings to University modules, and the inclusion of modules which were identified in the Handbook as 'not part of the Bournemouth University BA Programme', a matter which had not been referred to in the Commentary. Additionally, the team found that the Prospectus did not identify any of the Semester 2 units as not forming part of the University-approved curriculum and, indeed, did not identify the programme as the University's (see below, paragraph 89).
41 The University explained these differences between the credit ratings ascribed to units in the Handbook, and in the 1996 definitive course document, as having possibly resulted from revisions to the equivalent University-based course, which had not been reflected in an updating of the definitive course document. This did not however account, in the audit team's view, for the variations between the credit ratings in the Handbook and in the CTHM Prospectus. In relation to the separate matter of the additional units, the team noted from papers in the University's base room that the possibility of adding further units to the University's top-up programme at CTHM had been raised by the latter as early as March 1997, six months after the first students at CTHM had been registered by the University.
42 The audit team further noted that at the beginning of March 1997 the Director of Studies of the University's Department of Food and Hospitality had written to the Director of CTHM, stating his understanding 'that you may be running a dissertation for the students for your own purposes, and we would not wish to interfere with that if it does not overlap with our programme. We would request, however, that it does not appear on the BA course calendar as it may be inferred from this as a unit which is validated by ourselves.' The Director of CTHM responded later that month, that in relation to the proposed dissertation:
'The BA program has a dual nature: it is both yours and ours. It is "ours" in the sense that it is approved by the Cyprus Ministry of Education as a programme of study offered by the College. We are bound by the local legislation and the format and details of the programme as these were submitted and approved by the Ministry of Education. It is also "ours" in the sense that we may have objectives and requirements over and above those of the Bournemouth BA. Our objective is to develop a program that satisfies Bournemouth requirements but takes into consideration the local legislation and aims at becoming a BA (honours) program. This creates more problems to us than to you. Since the dissertation is not validated by Bournemouth, not many students will do it, and the credibility of the College will suffer'.
43 At a course committee meeting for the franchised programme, held in
Nicosia in April 1997, the Director of CTHM 'confirmed that the dissertation
is not a necessary condition for obtaining the Bournemouth
BA degree but is necessary for obtaining the College of Tourism degree', and
he and the University's Link Tutor 'stressed the benefits to students from undertaking
and completing the dissertation'. In 1997, at its meeting in May, the Examination
Board for the BA Hospitality Management, meeting in Cyprus, sought and received
confirmation from members of the School associated with the franchise to CTHM
that students had been informed that the dissertation was not a necessary requirement
for the Bournemouth award.
44 The matter of the status of the two additional units was pressed again by CTHM at the Examination Board and Course Management Committee meetings in June 1999. At that time, and as a way of resolving remaining difficulties, it was agreed by CTHM and members of the School attending the meetings, that students would be required to acknowledge a commitment to pass all eight units - that is, the six University-approved units together with the two units added by CTHM. At its meeting in September 1999, the International Programmes Committee of the School noted that two units, Intercultural Communications and Senior Research Project had been introduced by CTHM 'following instructions by the Ministry of Education'. The Committee's minutes recorded that there had been much discussion at the June Examination Board as to whether or not students failing one or both of these units, but successfully completing all the University's units, would be eligible for the Bournemouth degree. 'Students enrolling in October would be asked to sign their agreement to passing all units prior to graduating. It was anticipated that this could be resolved by the change of course to BA International Hospitality and Tourism Management and the introduction of an honours element' which would have provided an opportunity to bring the provision offered through the link in Cyprus back into line with that offered in Bournemouth.
45 Members of the School closely associated with the operation of the University's programme at CTHM told the audit team when it visited the University that the two additional units had been added by CTHM to the University's franchised programme for those students enrolled in 1997-98, and stated that the two additional units were a requirement in order for the University's degree to be recognised by the Cyprus government. They considered that the addition of two units to its own curriculum did not have any implications for the quality assurance of the programme, stating that 'the issues raised do not bear on the student experience', a matter the team later discussed with students in Cyprus, who took a different view (see below, paragraph 75).
46 From the information in the base room, and from discussions with members of the University, it appeared that in 1997-98 all members of the student cohort following the franchised programme at CTHM had successfully completed both the six units required for the University award and the two additional units required by CTHM. In 1998-99 it appeared that two students had failed the CTHM units but had then been successful in the resit examinations. All students in 1997-98 and 1998-99, therefore, had been successful in securing the Bournemouth BA award and in satisfying the additional requirements of CTHM.
47 For the September 1999 intake, students studying on the franchised programme
and registering with the University for its BA Hospitality Management in
1999-2000 were required by CTHM, apparently with the agreement of the School,
on behalf of the University, to sign an undertaking which stated:
'The Bournemouth course comprises six units of study. In addition it is compulsory for all students studying the degree course in Cyprus to take and pass two local units, Intercultural Communication and Senior Research Project. This ruling has been made and approved by the Cyprus Ministry of Education. It will not be possible to graduate with the Bournemouth or the College's BA degree unless all units - Bournemouth units and Cyprus units - have been passed. Please sign below to indicate that you understand and are willing to accept this ruling.'
Following its visit to Bournemouth the audit team was informed by the University that the wording of the document which the 1999-2000 student cohort for the franchised programme at CTHM had been required to sign had not been 'properly approved by the University'. The team was told later, however, that students admitted to the franchised programme in February 2000 had not been required to sign the undertaking required of their peers in September 1999.
48 At this stage, the University's quality assurance arrangements which should have alerted it over more than one session to the full range of these matters, and to the need for (at least) further clarification included: at School level, from the Link Tutor and the ICDO to the School management; the regular meetings of the team of staff responsible for managing and delivering the BA Hospitality Management; the periodic meetings of the School Committee; and, at University, level for the 1997-98 session, arrangements for annual monitoring and annual IAARCM. The synoptic report (see above, paragraph 32) for the BA Hospitality Management for 1998-99, prepared as part of the University's standard quality assurance arrangements, had addressed the matter, stating of the franchised programme at CTHM that:
'It was surprising to note that two additional units had been added, apparently arbitrarily into the programme over the academic year - because of local legislation. This issue was clearly debated at some length in the course committee meeting of 19-6-99 and a number of alternative solutions suggested to ensure that both institutions and students are clear about the expectation and requirements for each other and students are not disadvantaged. This will be an issue for future monitoring.'
In the light of the information cited above, it was surprising to the audit team that the synoptic report had not called for active investigation by ASC, or the University, and that earlier comments by the Director of CTHM at a number of meetings with members of the University, from 1997 onwards, had not caught the attention of those conducting the University's IAARCM process who, according to the Blue Book, had access to the same records, and on the same basis, as the QAA team. Information subsequently provided by the University stated, however, that it was not usual for internal academic audit teams to verify the accuracy of an ARCM with reference to primary sources of information. This represents a significant weakening of the IAARCM procedures described in the Blue Book.
49 In the course of the visit to the University, senior officers and managers
told the audit team that the University had first become aware of the matter
of the two additional units in the Summer of 1999. The University's formal
position was stated in March 2000 to be that the units did not form part
of the curriculum of the University's BA Hospitality Management; had not
been validated by the University; were not considered by the external examiners
appointed by the University for the franchised programme; did not appear
on award transcripts issued by the University; and were not a requirement
for the University's degree award. The requirement for the attainment of
the University's award was, it stated, the successful completion of the
six units that formed the
University-approved curriculum for the BA Hospitality Management. The team was
told that consideration of an alignment between University and CTHM requirements
would form part of the review of the Bournemouth BA, then scheduled for October
2000
(see below, paragraph 54).
50 Following the visit of the audit team to the University, and in advance of the visit of the team to CTHM, the University sought additional information from CTHM and from the Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture on the matters discussed above in paragraphs 40-42. Shortly before the visit of the team to Cyprus, the University wrote to QAA to state that it had learnt that CTHM additionally offered its own BA in Hospitality Management (henceforth, the Cyprus BA), which comprised the six units of the University's degree and a further two units (Intercultural Communication and Senior Research Project) to satisfy the recognition requirements of the Cyprus government. The University had also learnt from its partner that it had submitted the Cyprus BA to the CEE for accreditation, and that a team from CEE was expected to visit CTHM in September 2000 (see below, Appendix 1, paragraph 4). On the basis of its enquiries, the situation appeared to the University to be that 'the Cyprus Government has effectively given approval for the College to offer a BA programme in its own right, and that this approval makes no specific reference to the University's award. Students have been receiving two awards, having satisfied the requirement of both the 6-unit (University) and 8-unit (College) programmes.'
51 In the same communication to QAA, the University indicated that it was addressing the matters described above with CTHM, the British Council and the Cyprus Government. It remained the University's position, however, that it had been unaware of the coexistence of the two degree programmes until the audit team's enquiries, notwithstanding information available in the School's papers from 1997 referring to a 'Cyprus degree', or the presence of senior members of the University at awards ceremonies in Cyprus hosted by CTHM, in two consecutive years, at which, according to the Director of CTHM, students simultaneously following the University's franchised programme and the Cyprus BA had been presented with two awards. In such circumstances the team found it difficult to understand how the University had remained unaware of the existence of the Cyprus BA for so long (see below, paragraph 59).
Periodic review
52 The University's quality assurance procedures require that courses leading to its awards must be reviewed 'at intervals not exceeding seven years'. The detailed procedures for reviewing courses follow those for the initial evaluation of new proposals, including review and resubmission of a definitive course document; the provision of a critical evaluation of the course; external examiners' reports and statistical and historical information on development of the course in the preceding years.
53 In May 1997 the University carried out a review of the Hospitality Management group of courses after five years, in the course of which it reviewed and evaluated the operation of the first year of the BA Hospitality Management at CTHM. As part of the review, members of the University travelled to Cyprus to meet students and to discuss progress in general and the learning environment for the franchised programme in particular. The Commentary stated that the panel which had visited CTHM had 'found that the collaboration had started well, but identified areas where improvements were needed, mainly in staff development' (see below, paragraph 81).
54 Subsequently, at its first meeting, in February 2000, the School group working on a review of partnership arrangements in Tourism and Hospitality considered an initial proposal for a revised curriculum for the partnership at CTHM, based on five units, each carrying 20 credits, rather than the 90 credits of the 1996 definitive course document. The meeting discussed the question of continuing with a 100 credit non-Honours curriculum and it was agreed that 'this would need to be discussed in the first instance with the College Director because of the issue of the Cyprus Government insisting on additional subjects'.
55 At its meeting with the University's
Pro-Vice-Chancellor in Cyprus, the audit team was told that the University was
likely to bring forward its planned periodic review of its franchised programme.
The University subsequently confirmed that it intended to conduct a 'special
review' of the programme at CTHM in recognition 'of the curricular and other
issues brought into focus by the QAA Collaborative Audit...and to ensure that
no further students...[were] ...admitted to the course in its present form'.
56 Following the visit of the audit team to the University in March 2000, the latter stated that it was 'content that the partnership between the University and the College, building on the three year diploma, has allowed students to be offered degree level educational experience commensurate with and appropriate to the award of the University'. The team noted the University's belief that steps taken since 1996 through its 'strengthened and centrally driven processes for partnership approval' would prevent a recurrence of discrepancies in arrangements for the partnership - chiefly at that time seen by the University in terms of discrepancies in the credit values assigned to its units at CTHM - 'not least through a requirement that matters bearing on standards and quality must be referred to ADQ for advice'. In the course of its meeting with the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor at CTHM the team was told that it was the University's intention to continue its link with CTHM, subject to the findings of the forthcoming special review.
Summary
57 Reviewing the quality assurance arrangements and policies operated by the University to assure itself that all is well with its collaborative provision, it appeared to the audit team that the measures specified by the University - chiefly, initial evaluation; a formal agreement; the work of the CTHM- and School-based course committees; annual monitoring; internal academic audit; periodic review; and the work of the Link Tutor and the ICDO - offered the potential, within the framework provided by the Blue Book and the ADQ Guidelines, to promote both quality assurance and quality enhancement in relation to the programme franchised to CTHM. The University acknowledges that the measures it operated in 1996 to assess the legal, social and educational context for a proposed partnership, and to review the standing of a potential partner, were not sufficient for the burden they were expected to carry. The University's judgement in this matter is sound.
58 In respect of the other quality assurance arrangements operated by CTHM and the School, the course committees in Nicosia and Bournemouth have regularly exchanged information, and members of the School have attended the CTHM-based course committee and reported back to its Bournemouth-based counterpart. At CTHM, there is evidence that students' views are collected and attended to, and that student representatives attend meetings of the course management. The audit team saw evidence of timely and effective action taken by CTHM to address student concerns in relation, for example, to Library provision and information and communication technology support. Annual monitoring reports have been completed for the franchised programme since 1997 and have been submitted to the University's quality assurance arrangements, via the School. Reports from partnership links, including reports from CTHM, have been submitted to the University's internal academic audit processes on two occasions.
59 In the light of the volume of formal and informal information flowing between the partners (including emails and correspondence seen by the audit team), and the formal reports on the franchise produced by the University's quality assurance arrangements including the Link Tutor, the Head of School and the ICDO, the inability of key individuals and quality systems at School- and University-level to detect the existence of the Cyprus BA and associated matters impinging on the student experience at CTHM has caused the team considerable concern (see below, paragraph 75). It is also of concern that the University's arrangements had not alerted it to the difficulties being experienced by its students in Cyprus, caused by the imposition of the two additional units by its partner. It was not clear to the team that the University understood that the inability of its quality arrangements for this link to bring the existence of the Cyprus BA to its attention might have implications for the reliability of its quality arrangements for partnership arrangements generally. The findings of the present audit in this regard therefore substantiate the reservations expressed in the 2000 report.
60 The University is invited to consider the urgent need to review and, where necessary, strengthen the management framework for each of its collaborative links, and to develop a clear institutional locus of responsibility for the quality assurance of overseas partnerships. The University will also wish to satisfy itself as to whether individual lapses or systemic weaknesses were the cause of the failure to detect the existence of the Cyprus BA, and will no doubt wish to take remedial steps accordingly.
Academic standards
61 The Blue Book states that the '...academic standards required by the University are the same irrespective of the organisation conducting the programme' and that the 'final responsibility for academic standards of programmes leading to awards of the University rests with Senate irrespective of where the programme is conducted'.
The admission of students
62 The Account submitted to support the University's continuation audit stated that whilst Schools are responsible for the selection of students, 'partner institutions fulfil similar functions for collaborative programmes'. The formal agreement between the University and CTHM 'recognises the authority of the Principal' of the College in the selection and registration of students, 'subject to the requirements of the University'.
63 Students seeking admission to CTHM to study the University-approved programme complete two application forms, one for the University's programme and one for the Cyprus BA. The entry requirements agreed with the University are clearly expressed in the 1996 definitive document and stipulate the achievement of 'good grades' (defined as the 'cumulative percentage grade average of 75 per cent') and 'a very good knowledge of the English language, equivalent to a score of 550 of TOEFL [Test of English as a Foreign Language]'. Opportunities are also available for students to enter directly to the University's franchised programme through accreditation of prior learning (APL) or with qualifications deemed equivalent to the CTHM Diploma. CTHM told the audit team that it recommended applicants to the University for direct entry, but that the decision rested with the latter.
64 The Commentary noted that the University's external examiner
for its franchised programme had raised as a concern the standards of English
of some of the students taking the final assessments. Scrutiny of the pass
lists, supplemented by discussions with students at CTHM, confirmed that
an increasing number of those entering the franchised programme (some 70
per cent in 1998-99) were domiciled elsewhere than in Cyprus but that,
hitherto, no action appeared to have been taken to address the emergence
of a more linguistically and culturally diverse student clientele than
that anticipated when the partnership commenced. During its visit to Cyprus
the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor told the audit team that he would be discussing new arrangements
for English language testing and support with the management of CTHM. The University
will wish to ensure the adequacy of arrangements at CTHM for assessing the competence
of students in written and spoken English prior to admission to the franchised
programme, in accordance with its requirements, and for maintaining appropriate
levels of language development during the Diploma course which leads into the
University's programme.
Assessment
65 In the Account, the University stated that the 'standards of awards for collaborative courses are established through the application of the same policies and processes as those which apply to courses based in the University' and that the Assessment Regulations 'regulate the equivalence of academic standards between the University and its partners'. The Operations Manual for the programme specifically refers readers to the Blue Book in respect of assessment issues. It is the responsibility of the School's Head of Quality to ensure that the procedures followed by CTHM for the security and integrity of examinations complies with University regulations and practice. The Operations Manual defines the relative roles of the University and CTHM for the overall management of the examinations process.
66 The Course Handbook sets out clearly the assessment requirements and criteria for the course, procedures for the submission of coursework, marking schemes and appeal arrangements as well as the University's model regulations for undergraduate programmes. The balance between coursework and formal examinations is also clearly laid out in the Students' Handbook. Students who met the audit team in Cyprus confirmed their understanding of these arrangements which they had found to be clearly expressed. Responsibility for setting assessments lies increasingly with unit tutors at CTHM, although assessments must be approved by School tutors, prior to moderation by the University's external examiner. The team concluded that these arrangements were well-understood and effectively applied by both parties in the link.
The external examiner
67 External examiners are appointed to the Bournemouth BA Hospitality Management degree programmes as members of a team, through normal University procedures, each having responsibility for the Bournemouth-based course and at least one course operated with an overseas partner, to ensure 'an appropriate comparison of standards' across the partner franchises. A Board of Examiners, operating with authority delegated by the main Board at Bournemouth, meets annually at CTHM, and is chaired by a senior member of the School. The members of the Board normally visit CTHM for three working days to enable a thorough scrutiny of students' work and to allow the external examiner to meet students, view facilities and conduct viva voce examinations, although the audit team noted that this last facility has not so far been required.
68 The results of any resit examinations are confirmed by the authority of the Chair of the University's delegated Board, by prior agreement with the external examiner. Decisions on students' awards are taken formally by the delegated Board, although the audit team noted that the full Board in Bournemouth considered an analysis of student performance across the range of partner institutions.
69 External examiners report to the University using a standard form. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) reads all examiners' reports, and consideration of the examiner's report is an integral part of the annual course monitoring process and is attached to the ARCM (see above, paragraph 32). It is also scrutinised by members of QAEG whose reports, in their turn, are independently summarised for ASC. A copy of the external examiner's report is also sent to CTHM. The University's arrangements to judge the comparability of output standards across the partnerships are commendable in their scope and vision.
70 The University board of examiners which visits CTHM does not consider
matters relating to the two additional Cyprus BA units. The Director of
CTHM told the audit team that a separate arrangement had been made for
these two additional units, involving the appointment of a member of the
School to act as an external examiner for CTHM. The University appeared
to the team to have been unaware of this appointment. The Director of CTHM
was of the opinion that the Cyprus BA was the only degree programme in
Cyprus which had adopted the practice of appointing an external examiner.
Whilst the external examining duties of the member of the School appointed
by CTHM relate to the two additional units of the Cyprus BA, an award of
CTHM rather than of the University, the team was told that his role also
extended to guidance on the development of learning and assessment strategies
and to offering more general staff development and support on developing
and disseminating the academic culture of the University in CTHM. In addition
to acting as the CTHM external examiner for the Cyprus BA
(as distinct from the University's award) he also acts as the external examiner
for the CTHM Diploma from which students progress to the University's programme
(and also progress to the Cyprus BA). It was not clear to the team what arrangements
this member of the University's staff had taken to seek the University's agreement
to his appointment as external examiner for the Cyprus BA.
71 The audit team noted significant differences between the first (CTHM) and second (University) markings of scripts, a matter remarked on as early as 1997 by the external examiner, and encourages the University to support the contribution made by its staff visiting CTHM, in offering guidance and development on the assessment of students. At the time of the audit, the form in which the BA Hospitality Management was approved in 1996 for delivery in Cyprus was being phased out at the University. Any significant variations in the curriculum between the programmes delivered in Bournemouth and Cyprus will therefore reduce the scope for checks on the levels of attainment of the University's students based in Cyprus, other than through the programme's external examiner.
The learning infrastructure
72 In its Commentary, the University identified the ways by which the learning environment for the course in Cyprus has been approved and monitored: through the initial evaluation in 1996 and the subsequent review visit in 1997 (see above, paragraphs 20 and 53); through the ARCM process; through reports on facilities, usually informally to senior School level, from lecturers visiting CTHM (mainly to teach), from the Link Tutor and the ICDO and from occasional visits from other senior School and University staff. The audit team sought to confirm these statements and to understand how they operated in practice.
Arrangements for the induction, academic counselling and pastoral support of students
73 Student induction is the responsibility of CTHM, which provides pre-enrolment information on its own and University joining arrangements, and ensures that students receive the Course Handbook and the University and CTHM Student Charters. The formal agreement between the partners notes that the Course Handbook is 'prepared by the College in conjunction with the School and is derived from the Course Definition Document'. The Course Handbook is discussed with new students at induction, when an insight into the University and the School is provided via a video recording, prepared by the University, and by a formal presentation from a visiting member of the School. Cyprus-based students expressed their satisfaction with these arrangements and confirmed that they received a Bournemouth Student Union card and a copy of the University's Student Charter, although they considered these as largely symbolic. The audit team concluded that the University and CTHM had jointly established effective arrangements for the induction of students.
74 The Commentary stated of student support arrangements at CTHM that there were 'no dedicated support services at this small College'. Academic and pastoral care is provided to students by the teaching team and CTHM management. The CTHM teaching team is therefore the first line of support for students, supplemented by visiting University staff. CTHM provides support for students with queries on financial and accommodation matters and has access to a qualified psychologist. Members of the School who met the audit team testified to the deep concern of the Principal of CTHM and his staff for the students' welfare. Cyprus students confirmed the caring approach they had encountered from individual staff at CTHM.
75 In practice, the student experience in Cyprus is informally monitored
through visits from Bournemouth staff, including the Link Tutor, who provide
reports on their experiences on their return. The University told the audit
team that these reports, and the comprehensive reports of visits by senior
staff in the School, were seen by the School's International Programmes
Committee. CTHM does not receive copies of the reports which University
staff make on their visits and there appear to be no other formal arrangements
in the University by which the collective outcomes of these visits can
be analysed and fed back to CTHM for its information. It may be that the
absence of such an arrangement has prevented the University from appreciating
both that students are dissatisfied with the CTHM requirement that they
study the two additional modules referred to elsewhere in this report,
and the concerns of the students lest the additional workload represented
by the two additional modules prejudice their ability to complete the
University-approved modules satisfactorily. The University's formal position
is that the imposition of the additional modules 'do not bear on the student
experience': this position should be re-examined, together with the quality arrangements
which led to it.
The Library and information and communication technology support
76 In the Commentary, the University stated that its Library at Bournemouth worked in partnership with the School 'to support and stimulate the learning, teaching, research and consultancy of the University by providing access to a wide range of facilities, resources and services'. It appeared that this arrangement was nurtured by a close working relationship between Library staff at the two institutions and by providing students based at CTHM with internet access to a range of Bournemouth Library databases.
77 The audit team was told that CTHM had actively supported staff development for its Librarian, and that there were good working relationships between the University and the Librarian at CTHM. University staff visit the Library at CTHM during their teaching visits to Cyprus and, together with staff based at CTHM, they recommend additions to the stock of books and periodicals. Students who met the team reported severe pressure on the available books (mostly textbooks) a matter confirmed by the Librarian.
78 The audit team also discussed arrangements for provision of information and communication technology (ICT) support with students and, separately, with the relevant member of CTHM staff. Students were appreciative of the facilities made available to them, and stated that discussions at course committees had been effective in securing an increase and enhancement of ICT facilities. It seemed to the team that the Librarian and the ICT Support Manager were working effectively to provide general support for students in the use of ICT, and in accessing electronic learning materials, and that they had taken sensible steps to prioritise access to ICT facilities for BA students. The team could find no evidence, however, that the University systematically monitored these arrangements or offered its partner advice on their enhancement.
Staffing and staff development
79 Under the terms of the formal agreement it is the responsibility of CTHM to 'provide adequate numbers of suitably qualified teaching staff' for the franchised programme. Arrangements for the appointment of staff by CTHM are clearly set out in the latter's Faculty Manual and, according to the Commentary, staff teaching at CTHM must be approved by the Cyprus Ministry of Education and 'must, therefore, possess relevant postgraduate qualifications'. High levels of turnover in the staff teaching the University's programme have been a feature of the partnership since its inception, creating a challenging set of circumstances for both CTHM and the University, as they seek to maintain an appropriate mix of academic and practical experience in the teaching team in Cyprus delivering the franchised programme.
80 Information on staff changes at CTHM is passed to the University through the School, which receives copies of the CVs for recently appointed staff. Whilst the School is of the view that there is no evidence to suggest that the qualifications and experience of staff at CTHM give cause for concern (which may well be correct) it seemed to the audit team that the University's lack of influence in the appointment of staff based at CTHM employed to teach for the University's award was a weakness in the partnership arrangements. The team therefore welcomes the School's stated intention to vet the applications of candidates, prior to interview, thereby securing greater participation in the staff recruitment process at CTHM.
81 As part of the formal agreement between the partners, the University undertook to 'provide reasonable support and advice...in the development of teaching and learning strategies, media and materials'. The Commentary described a number of initiatives it has taken to assist with the development of staff at CTHM, including: staff shadowing, team-teaching, seminars and workshops, and Network (partnership) Conferences. The University provided a note of the additional staff development activities organised by CTHM during the 1999-2000 session, although the audit team was unable to judge the extent to which the University had a role in determining the nature of these events or monitoring their effectiveness.
82 In her 1998-99 report, the University's external examiner expressed the hope that the differences in teaching style and strategy between Bournemouth and Cyprus staff would disappear 'as the Cyprus staff gain more experience and confidence in UK teaching and learning strategies'. Similarly, students at CTHM who met the audit team considered that their learning might have been significantly enhanced in certain units had there been a greater consistency in the teaching approaches adopted by CTHM and University staff and that, in the interim, they would have welcomed greater involvement with Bournemouth teachers. Team-teaching arrangements, had, according to School representatives whom the team met, enabled the School to retain ownership of the course, to facilitate the development of Cyprus staff and to assist with their own personal development. The high levels of staff turnover at CTHM referred to above, and specific requests from students based at CTHM, have together persuaded the University to continue the 'shadowing' arrangements (and, therefore, the direct participation of its own staff) longer than it had initially intended. The combination of these circumstances has no doubt contributed to the University's welcome decision to review the adequacy of the processes through which it assesses the suitability of a potential partner, including its activities to assess the staffing arrangements available to support a proposed programme.
83 Staff in Cyprus appreciated the collaboration of their University colleagues in teaching, but it seemed to the audit team that opportunities for development in teaching and learning practice were limited to curriculum discussions, observation by Cyprus staff of the limited one or two weeks of teaching by Bournemouth colleagues at the beginning of each semester, and discussions following the double-marking of the students' work. There was evidence of a wide range of staff development activity, the effectiveness of which could usefully be enhanced by the articulation of a coherent and regular programme of activities.
Feedback and enhancement
84 The University informed the audit team that for partnership links the School has developed formal procedures for student feedback which are identical to those used at Bournemouth. Until the present session, however, it appeared to be the case that CTHM has used its own student questionnaires for the programme, which focus 'only on individual lecturers'. The information derived from these questionnaires 'was treated as confidential' by CTHM, and the University therefore did not receive direct feedback information from its students in Cyprus. For these reasons until 1999-2000 unit evaluations undertaken by the students have been considered at CTHM by the Director and the Programme Coordinator for the University-approved programme, but not by the University itself. It seemed to the team that under the former arrangements for the link, the University had inadequate knowledge of the students' learning experiences, and that its quality assurance arrangements had been insufficiently sensitive to make a positive contribution to course delivery. The University's decision to amend its former arrangements is therefore sound, and it will wish to consider the advisability of working with the course management at CTHM to develop a strategic plan for formative evaluation and consequent staff development, and to secure greater oversight of the teaching practices deployed in units as a whole, rather than specifically in those sections delivered by University staff.
85 The University's first Network Conference was cited as a model of good practice by the external examiner in her most recent report. It had been open to staff in each of the partner institutions delivering the hospitality management courses and had been attended by a member of CTHM. The Network Conference has the potential to assist in sharing good practice in teaching and learning and to increase the sense of partnership between the University and the institutions collaborating with it. The University is to be commended on establishing the Network Conference, and is encouraged to explore ways of securing both a greater attendance by Cyprus staff and an increased emphasis on pedagogy in future Conference programmes.
Internal and external communications
Communications between the partners
86 Communications between the partners might be said to fall into two broad categories: day-to-day contact between administrative staff in the School and CTHM, and between tutors associated with the franchised programme in Bournemouth and Cyprus; and higher level, strategic contacts about the future direction of the partnership, between the University and the School, and the Director and management of CTHM.
87 In day-to-day contact between the partners the main channel of communication between the University and CTHM is through the ICDO and the Programme Coordinator at CTHM, rather than the Link Tutor. The role of the Link Tutor is currently under review across the University, but it was unclear whether this would result in a clear strategic role for the Link Tutor responsible for each of the School's links, with direct routes into the most senior School and University levels, or whether the envisaged role was to focus exclusively on the operational details.
88 Fax, telephone and email are used by the ICDO and the Programme Coordinator on a regular basis and by University tutors, the Library and ICT staff and their counterparts at CTHM. These arrangements seemed to the audit team generally to work well. Minutes of meetings conducted at CTHM of the course management, the Management Board, and the University's delegated examinations board, are sent to the School's International Programmes Committee (IPC) and inform the process which leads to the ACRM. However, there appeared to be no formal feedback to the committees at CTHM on the outcomes of the School discussions. CTHM is therefore not able to benefit from the scrutiny of these reports by the University and the School. At the strategic level, responsibility for maintaining a view on behalf of the University of the operation of the programme and its future direction appeared unclear.
Promotional materials
89 The formal agreement between the University and CTHM vests in the latter
the responsibility to 'market and promote the courses through its prospectuses,
brochures and in other appropriate ways', using information provided by
the University and confirming with it that any promotional materials are
accurate. The current CTHM Prospectus was provided for the audit
team in the University's base room. It contained no information which would
have allowed a reader to understand that the programme offered at CTHM
was the University's programme, and led to its award
(see above, paragraph 51).
90 Students following the University's franchised programme at CTHM were, however, in no doubt that they had registered to study for the University's award but had not been clear, at registration, that the University-approved programme, together with the two additional 'Cyprus' units would lead additionally to a BA award of CTHM. The audit team discussed the discrepancies and omissions in the CTHM Prospectus with members of the University, who seemed to have no prior knowledge of them. From these discussions it appeared that the University does not operate an effective arrangement to check the accuracy of materials promoting its programmes issued by its partners, a lack which it will wish to remedy as a matter of urgent necessity.
The award certificate
91 The University informed the audit team that when a programme 'is delivered off campus [it] records the place of study on the award certificate, and the language of instruction and assessment where this is not English. The same information is recorded on transcripts.' The University provided the team with a sample degree certificate which did not show the place of study but student transcripts seen by the team clearly stated the place of study as Cyprus. The University told the team that, following discussions with its partner institutions, it intended for the future to conform to the QAA Code in this respect.
Conclusions
92 The University sees its partnership with the College of Tourism and Hotel Management in Nicosia as a 'small scale collaboration' which presents a number of challenges 'in recognising the cultural and educational differences that exist between partners'. The University sees the partnership as similar in 'substance, style and relationships' to those operated by the University in other overseas institutions specialising in hotel and tourism management. These relationships it sees as being characterised by similar agreements, operational procedures and quality assurance arrangements. The University's quality assurance procedures have treated its franchised programme as a free-standing course, closely related to the Hospitality Management programmes and awards from which it sprang at Bournemouth.
93 The University considers that the partnership with CTHM has been formative, in that the 'experiences of developing and assuring the partnership have influenced the University's policies and procedures both formally and informally'; and the School of Service Industries views its partnership with CTHM as an integral element of a wider international network of provision in the hospitality management field, which it is seeking to expand. There is sufficient evidence for it to be open to question whether the purposes of the University and its partner in developing the link between them are compatible. Radical differences in the interpretation of the nature of their partnership between the University and CTHM have created problems about the existence of which until recently the University has not been fully aware.
94 At the time the Commentary on the link with CTHM was written the University was confident of the soundness of the partnership. As grounds for that confidence it cited the role of a UK-based external examiner with responsibility for the partner programme and cognate courses delivered at Bournemouth; the closeness of the working relationship between staff of the two institutions; the contribution of University staff to the teaching programmes; the regular flow of visitors between the partners; and the strong commitment of key staff at both locations. Based on these measures it believes it is possible to state that 'the outcomes are of a standard comparable to those on similar courses delivered at the University'.
95 Until recently the University was unaware that the curriculum which it had franchised to CTHM was being used in parallel as a significant proportion of another award, for which its students qualified, but for which it had no responsibility, nor had it been aware of the sequence of events and the nuances of the background of this development. The present audit has identified significant issues of a strategic nature which demonstrate that the University is not fully in control of the partnership, a matter of which it had remained unaware until after the beginning of the audit. Earlier experiences had apparently already caused the University to strengthen the rigour with which potential new overseas partnerships are to be assessed, and it subsequently advised QAA of its establishment of a special review, to provide at least short-term solutions to some of the concerns identified by the present audit in relation to the current partnership. Some of those concerns might have been avoided, or certainly managed more effectively, had those with responsibility for the general oversight of the partnership, at a senior level in the School and in the University, been more alert to developments within the link and more vigorous in responding to those matters noticed by its quality assurance arrangements. In this particular instance, the University's quality arrangements have proved insufficiently robust to identify actual problems, anticipate potential problems, and to enhance the quality of the student experience.
96 The teaching staff based at CTHM work with their University colleagues in developing their teaching experience, often through joint teaching. Students at CTHM testified to the enthusiasm and commitment of University and CTHM teaching and support staff, and particularly praised the teaching contributions of University staff. Staff at CTHM, at all levels, appear to provide a supportive and caring approach to students. There are arrangements for students' views to be gathered both formally and informally, which have recently been enhanced, and the local course committee has often been an effective vehicle for securing improvements that were within the remit of CTHM. Administrative arrangements appear to be sound, and staff at CTHM appear to be punctilious in ensuring the implementation of the various aspects of the University's regulatory framework. The link between the University and CTHM is supported by active and enthusiastic day-to-day communications between the Programme Coordinator at CTHM and the School's International Coordinating Development Officer in Bournemouth.
97 In the course of the audit, the University acknowledged to QAA that the level of confidence it had reposed in its quality arrangements for this link might have been overstated. For its link with CTHM Annual Reports on Course Monitoring and external examiner reports are submitted to the relevant School and University committees, and the external examiner reports are broadly supportive of the standards and operation of the franchised programme. These reports raise a number of issues, however, which appeared to have been merely 'noted' within the deliberative processes of the School and the University. There has not been effective feedback from the University to CTHM, following consideration by the former of the ARCMs and the external examiners' reports, nor any clear formal responsibility within the School or the University for ensuring the implementation of the Annual Action Plans attached to the ARCMs, and responses to the recommendations of the external examiners. Reports prepared by Bournemouth staff visiting Cyprus are often comprehensive but are not passed on to CTHM. Such reports are thus unable to fulfil their prime function, of enhancing the quality of the link. In particular, the University's current quality arrangements do not appear to have been sufficiently robust to ensure that the delivery of the curriculum at CTHM is in line with that which it approved. The University will now need to consider, as a matter of urgency, whether its quality arrangements for each of its overseas partnerships are sufficiently robust, and responsibilities adequately delineated, to assure the quality of this part of its educational provision and to continue to safeguard the academic standards of its awards.
Appendix 1
Commentary on the audit report of private higher education colleges in Cyprus
1 The University has taken a number of steps to address the issues raised in this report, some specific to the Cyprus partnership, and some relating to the University's management of its collaborative activity in general. Some of these steps were in fact triggered by the QAA Continuation Audit report (May 2000). This report, while expressing broad confidence in the University's management of quality and standards, advised a strengthening of structures and measures for the oversight of collaborative activity.
2 Generic developments for the oversight of collaborative activity
2.1 Development of deliberative structures
2.1.1 The University has now established School Quality Committees (SQCs), in place from the beginning of academic year 2000 - 01. Membership of these committees includes a representative of the office of Academic Development and Quality (ADQ) and an independent member drawn from the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Group. SQCs report via the School Committee to Senate. In matters of programme monitoring, they report directly to the Academic Standards Committee of Senate. They will receive regular reports on collaborative partnership operations, and will ensure that reports and guidance are sent back to partner institutions.
2.1.2 The School of Service Industries has considered the relationship between this new committee and its International Programmes Committee, and has decided that the latter will in future feed into the SQC.
2.2 Development of management systems
2.2.1 In September 2000, the University established a Regional Partnerships
Unit, headed by a senior member of staff, to provide a co-ordination and
oversight function in respect of its UK academic partnerships. In parallel
with this, an International Office has been established and a new Head
of that Office, with international experience from another institution,
came into post in July 2000. The remit of this new office includes institutional
oversight and management of international partnerships. It will not
pre-empt the responsibilities of ADQ in respect of quality and standards, nor
the course management matters which properly remain with the participating School(s)
of the University. However, it will ensure that in matters such as contract and
local legal frameworks the University has better corporate awareness than it
has shown in this instance.
2.2.2 The University is also in the process of establishing a code of practice for the approval of marketing and promotional materials issued by partner institutions, which will be required to accept and implement the code as part of their formal agreement with the University. The Head of the International Office, Marketing Services, and ADQ are currently drafting this code. The Publicity Editorial Group (PEG; formerly the Prospectus Editorial Group) has been given responsibility for this approval process. The profile and reporting line of this body have been strengthened by making it a Standing Group of Academic Development Committee. In addition, the University has begun to monitor its partners' use of publicity materials, wherever this is practically possible, through the British Council and will do so more systematically in the future.
2.2.3 Measures being taken to strengthen the Link Tutor role and its effectiveness include the publication of revised Guidelines for Link Tutors, and confirmation of their reporting line to Schools' Heads of Quality. The newly introduced School Quality Committees will receive regular reports on all partnership operations, including visit reports from Link Tutors. The Link Tutors' Group has been given a more formal place in the deliberative structure of the University by designating it as a Standing Group of Academic Standards Committee. Meetings of Link Tutors for individual institutions also now take place, to report issues and to share good practice.
2.2.4 The University notes the view expressed by the Report (in paragraph 57) that its quality assurance policies and arrangements are inherently and essentially fit for purpose. This view reflects that taken in the Continuation Audit Report (QAA, 2000). Nevertheless, the University has reviewed the operation of its monitoring and internal audit processes. School-level scrutiny of Annual Reports on Course Monitoring (ARCM) has already been assigned to School Quality Committees (see above, 2.1.1). Additional resourcing of the internal audit, and a strengthening of the briefing and training process for auditors, have also been set in motion.
2.2.5 The University has revised its processes for approval of its external examiners to avoid reciprocities. This will involve the monitoring of external examiner appointments held by its own staff.
2.2.6 With regard to the oversight of teaching staff at partner institutions, Academic Standards Committee has resolved that, in addition to the consideration of staff CVs at initial approval and in periodic reviews, henceforth CVs for all newly recruited or deployed staff should be scrutinised by Senior Academics in the appropriate Schools, the process to be mediated through the Link Tutors. As a minimum this will allow suitable staff development conditions to be put in place where there are concerns.
3 Cyprus-specific developments
3.1 The special review
3.1.1 The School of Service Industries, under a new Head of School, has
concluded that the CTHM partnership is not sustainable in the longer term.
The University has agreed with CTHM that the agreement with the College
in respect of the current degree programme will be terminated in line with
the terms of the contract. The last cohort following the Level 3 programme
will run out
in 2002.
3.1.2 Against this backdrop, a review was held in Cyprus in September, with University and external membership. This review followed the University's normal process, and addressed some issues particular to this collaboration, including the integrity of the University's award and clear differentiation between this and the 'College BA'. Following a suggestion from CTHM, it established that the two 'additional units' would be optionally available but not required of any student.
3.1.3 Other issues addressed by the review included the need for very close monitoring of future recruitment in relation to entry requirements. No further part-time recruitment will be countenanced.
3.1.4 Students currently in the early stages of the Higher Diploma course will still have the option of the 'Cyprus BA' if the College continues to run it to its own award, and the University can offer such students access to essentially the same Level 3 'top-up' course at Bournemouth or through its other partnerships in Switzerland and elsewhere.
3.1.5 The School of Service Industries is also in the process of appointing new and separate Link Tutors to its overseas partnership programmes.
3.2 Other measures
3.2.1 The College is introducing the use of internationally validated English tests during this academic year. The Diploma has been strengthened over time by additional English language tuition, and development of English language skills has been a major component of the foundation year of the Diploma since 1999.
3.2.2 In 1999 the School reviewed the student feedback questionnaire in use at the College, and agreed the introduction of a new questionnaire. This has been implemented during 1999-2000, and the results will be documented through the ARCM.
4 Conclusion
4.1 The QAA Continuation Audit report of May 2000 specifically commends the University for the effectiveness of its annual course monitoring process, and of its arrangements for securing and responding to student feedback. However, the University fully recognises that in the present case these mechanisms have not worked as well as we would wish to ensure full institutional awareness of certain quality-related issues. The present collaborative audit report has provided a powerful stimulus to take forward a range of measures, outlined above, which we are confident will, in a reasonable time, reduce the risk that problems of this kind will recur.
4.2 In the meantime, Academic Development Committee (ADC) has placed a one-year moratorium on consideration of new proposals for international partnerships. During that time all existing international partnerships will be reviewed from the standpoint of security of quality and standards, and of sustainability. ADC has also established an International Partnerships Review Group (IPRG), chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic). IPRG is directing the reviews of all international partnerships, and will articulate clear guidelines for the development of any new partnerships, according to the outcome of 4.3.
4.3 At the time of writing (January 2001) the University is also opening the process of reconsidering the sections of its Strategic Plan which set targets for the development of international partnerships.
4.4 Following the arrival of a new Head of School at the beginning of the academic year 2000-01, the School's strategic plan is currently being revised. The School's mission and vision will remain intact but the School is reconsidering its entire collaborative strategy and the mode of its achievement.
4.5 All staff, new and old, who have any involvement with international partnerships take seriously the lessons to be learned from the audit.
Appendix 2
Context of the operation of private higher education colleges in Cyprus*
Establishment of colleges
1 Private colleges in Cyprus are governed by 'The Institutions of Tertiary Education Law (1996)' (henceforth, the Law) and 'The Private Institutions of Tertiary Education (Criteria and standards of education-accreditation of programmes of study) Regulations (1996)' (the Regulations). Private colleges must first be registered with the Minister of Education and Culture, and may then apply for recognition of their establishment and operation, which, if successful, will lead to the issue of a Certificate. The Minister is advised in respect of the latter by the Advisory Committee on Tertiary Education (the Advisory Committee). No private higher education institution may operate with out the issue of a Certificate.
2 Section 14 (2) of the Law was amended in 1997 to stipulate that 'no private institution may itself award degrees of foreign educational institutions or give, by any means, to foreign education institutions the possibility to award their own degrees in the Republic'. Briefings by a senior member of the Cyprus administration left the audit team with the understanding that developments in higher education policy in Cyprus had more recently come to reflect the views of the EU, in respect of the legitimacy of overseas collaborative provision amongst the member states of the Union, and that the Law was likely to be amended to reflect this at some time within the next two years.
3 At, or following their establishment, private higher education institutions in Cyprus may seek formal Government recognition of their programmes of study. Recognition of a programme of studies implies no judgement as to its merits, or the academic standards of the awards which colleges are free to make on their own authority. Recognition may be withdrawn if no students register on a course during a single academic year. Students graduating successfully from a programme which has been recognised may apply individually to the Ministry of Education and Culture for their award to be treated as equivalent in status to that of an award from the University of Cyprus which is at present the Republic's sole degree awarding body. For such an application to be successful the programme followed (whether at a private higher education institution in Cyprus, or elsewhere in the world) must be judged to be at least equivalent in its content, level, and academic standards, to those obtaining in respect of comparable programmes and awards of the University of Cyprus. A judgement that a student's programme meets these criteria is essential if she or he wishes to work in the public services in Cyprus, including teaching.
Top