The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) is a body owned by the universities, colleges and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. It was established in 1992 to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the quality and standards of all higher educational provision for which these institutions are responsible, wherever and however this is offered to students. To this end, HEQC has undertaken regular academic quality audits of individual institutions to review the operation and effectiveness of arrangements for assuring quality and standards.
Quality audits also cover the arrangements which institutions use to assure the quality and standards of their awards and programmes offered in collaboration with other partners, both within and outside the UK. As part of this process, HEQC has extended its audit procedures enabling audit teams to visit overseas partners of UK institutions so that the same enquiries can be made of arrangements for safeguarding UK awards and programmes offered to students outside the UK as are made of UK-based provision. This initiative has been designed to help provide enhanced confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.
The audit enquiries were assisted by the publication in December 1996 of HEQC’s revised Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education. This offers guidance on good practice and a framework within which institutions can review and consider their current and future activities. The Code of Practice has been widely welcomed and has been used as a common point of reference for the programme of overseas visits. While UK institutions participating in the programme have not been ‘measured’against the Code, (which is not intended to be a definitive check list), their experience of using it, and the findings from the overseas visits in general, will contribute to its revision and further development.
The UK universities and colleges, with the agreement of their overseas partners, were voluntary participants in the programme of overseas visits. Their collaborative links cover between them a range of programmes and subjects, levels of award and different forms of institutional partnership, involving a mix of partners from small, privately funded organisations to large, publicly funded universities.
This report is one of a number of reports published from the summer 1997 overseas audit programme. It should be read in conjunction with HEQC’s published audit report(s) on the UK university or college concerned, details of which can be found in this report.
1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for collaborative partnerships between De Montfort University and the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and between the University and the Fachhochschule Bielefeld, Germany. The audit examined the policies and procedures used by the University to satisfy itself of the academic quality and standards of its awards being offered in the Netherlands and Germany. The collaborative programmes covered by the partnerships were as follows:
- MA Social and Community Studies with the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven
- MSc Real Estate Development in Europe with the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven
- MSc informatics with the Fontys Hogeschool. Eindhoven
- MSc Computer Aided Engineering Techniques with the Fachhochschule Bielefeld
2 The audit of these two partnerships formed part of a series of audits of overseas collaborative provision undertaken in the summer of 1997 and included visits to both the Fontys Hogeschool, the Netherlands, and the Fachhochschule Bielefeld, Germany. Further information about the audits is contained on the inside front cover of this report.
3 A general description of De Montfort University’s mechanisms for the assurance of the quality of its collaborative provision activities is contained in HEQC’s Collaborative Provision Audit Report published in May 1996. An audit of the University’s overall quality assurance systems had previously been carried out by HEQC, leading to the publication of a report in September 1995. The quality assurance systems described in those two reports continued to apply at the time of the overseas audit visits.
4 The Council is grateful to the University and to its collaborating partners, the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven, and the Fachhochschule Bielefeld, for their assistance and co-operation.
5 Prior to the audit team’s visit to the Netherlands and Germany, the University submitted clear and comprehensive briefing documentation outlining its aims and implementation strategies in relation to the collaborative partnerships it has established in the Netherlands and Germany. The briefing material was mainly drawn from existing papers. Following its reading of the briefing documentation, the team proposed programmes for the overseas visits, and sought a limited amount of additional contextual material to help it to understand and verify the structure and processes of the University’s collaborative quality assurance arrangements. A preliminary visit to De Montfort University was carried out on 6 May 1997 and the team visited the Hogeschool, Eindhoven, on 23 May 1997 and the Fachhochschule Bielefeld on 28 May 1997. The team comprised Professor M W Bridger, Dr P J A Findlay and Dr L H Roberts, auditors, Ms S Stewart, audit secretary, and Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, for HEQC.
6 At De Montfort University, representatives of the audit team met senior staff responsible for collaborative programmes and quality assurance; University programme leaders; and students from the MSc Computer Aided Engineering Techniques and MSc Informatics programmes who were studying in Leicester at the time of the preliminary visit. During the overseas visits to the two partner institutions, the team met senior staff, including the Head of the International Office, Quality Auditor, Head of the Faculties (Deputy Director of the Institution) and Head of the Educational Development Office of a third faculty at the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Technology at the Fachhochschule Bielefeld, course leaders for all the collaborative programmes, academic staff teaching on all the programmes, administrative staff supporting the programmes, and students following the programmes who were studying in the partner institutions rather than at the University at the time of the visit. Explanatory briefing papers on the audit process were provided in Dutch and German for the partner institutions. The University was asked to distribute the papers, and the audit team was appreciative of the fact that all of the staff in the two partner institutions had received them. The team was also appreciative of the excellent arrangements made by the partner institutions for the visits and valued the open, friendly and constructive discussions that took place during the visits.
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
7 In this report the following abbreviations have been used:
The University: De Montfort UniversityFHE or the Hogeschool: Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven
FB or the Fachhochschule: Fachhochschule Bielefeld
ADC: Academic Development Committee
AQSC: Academic Quality and Standards Committee
PMB: Programme Management Board
SQAG: School Quality Assurance Group
MI: MSc Informatics
MREDIE: MSc Real Estate Development in Europe
MSCS: MA Social and Community Studies
MCAET: MSc Computer Aided Engineering Techniques
The University uses the term ‘programme’to refer to the approved academic studies that lead to an award. On some occasions the term ‘course’is used with a similar meaning and should be taken as being synonymous in this report.
Background to the partnerships
8 In its Mission Statement, the University, while noting that it is a ‘distributed institution’which is ‘locally sensitive’, identifies a clear objective ‘to explore new ways of promoting innovation in society locally, nationally and internationally’. As part of its strategy to meet this stated objective, the University has developed joint programmes, generally at master’s level, with partner institutions in a number of European countries. In addition to jointly developed programmes, the University also franchises a limited number of master’s awards. These programmes form part of a diverse collaborative portfolio operated by the University, including UK and overseas franchises, associate college links and accreditation agreements. These are described in the University’s earlier audit report (see HEQC Collaborative Provision Audit Report (May 1996), paragraphs 6 to 12 and 36 to 41). The programmes are also set in the broader context of student exchange programmes funded by European Union (EU) initiatives and direct bilateral agreements.
9 In the briefing documentation supplied for the audit visits, the University stressed that internationalisation was an important aspect of its work. In particular, it noted the need ‘to work cooperatively with international institutions of quality in a variety of appropriate modes’and to provide ‘quality education services’. Underpinning the University’s approach to its overseas collaborations is the desire to apply the same, or broadly similar, management and academic programme monitoring mechanisms that are used in relation to the University’s UK-based provision. The University suggested to the team that it had been cautious in developing its overseas collaborative programmes and that it was actively exploring the ways in which modern technologies might assist in the delivery of programmes to overseas clients, whilst helping to safeguard local support and quality management mechanisms.
10 The University has three senior members of staff who have responsibility for specific aspects of the University’s collaborative provision activities. In the case of overseas collaborative provision, the Pro Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for international affairs has responsibility for developing and monitoring relationships with overseas partners at the institutional level. The audit team was informed by senior staff that the independent oversight of the operation of overseas relationships by the Pro Vice-Chancellor who has responsibility for quality assurance, quality control and quality audit matters (and who also chairs the AQSC), was an important element of the University’s procedures. The team discussed roles and responsibilities with those staff involved with each of the programmes subject to the audit and, in general, found that the University’s mechanisms were well understood.
11 The collaborative links with both the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven (FHE),
and the Fachhochschule Bielefeld (FB) are of long-standing and the joint
and franchised programmes considered in this report represent the culmination
of a variety of research links, student and staff exchanges, and European
Union ERASMUS funded programmes (see also, paragraph 15).
Collaborative programmes with the Fontys Hogeschool,
Eindhoven
12 In the Netherlands, the hogescholen provide degree courses from which students graduate with an award that is equivalent to a BSc or BA Honours award of a UK higher education institution. Until recently, however, only universities in the Netherlands had powers to award their own postgraduate qualifications. In its briefing papers, the University noted that many graduates of the hogescholen had very little opportunity to study for postgraduate awards and that its collaborative programmes were meeting an identified and growing demand. During the course of its preparation for the overseas collaborative visits, the audit team became aware of a considerable number of arrangements between UK higher education institutions and the hogescholen, including franchises and also joint programmes such as those offered with the University. The team was also aware of the strong reputation of the hogescholen in delivering higher education courses and of the possibility that hogescholen would be permitted to offer postgraduate taught programmes in the near future (see below, paragraph 13).
13 The Fontys Hogeschool was formed in August 1996 from nine smaller hogescholen in and near Eindhoven. The new institution has approximately 35,000 students, of whom some 2,000 are part-time. The Hogeschool is now organised into six faculties and the audit team was told of a major initiative to introduce common quality management systems across the new structure. The three programmes considered in this report were previously offered with different institutions that have now formed the enlarged Hogeschool They are now offered with three different faculties of the new institution. Although each of the three links developed out of contacts between University academic staff and their counterparts at the Hogeschool, it was also clear that the University had also taken a strategic overview of their evolution. To this end, it has developed EU funded partnerships and networks (ERASMUS, SOCRATES and TEMPUS) involving Dutch partners and has also chosen to concentrate overseas joint collaborative provision in a limited number of countries, particularly the Netherlands. In the case of the links with Eindhoven, the University was clearly of the view that there was a good match between the institutions’missions, academic portfolios, and the general environment of the two cities. The team noted with interest that the relationships between the University and the Hogeschool are at all levels of the organisations, including heads of institutions, heads of school/heads of faculty, international offices and programme teams and that regular school/faculty review and planning meetings take place. The programmes considered in this report are a small part of the total activity of joint research, student and staff exchanges and involvement in wider European networks. Staff of the Hogeschool confirmed unequivocally to the team that the relationships with the University were valued and, in the case of the three joint master’s awards, they would continue regardless of whether the Hogeschool was able to make its own master’s awards in the future.
14 The MSc Informatics (Ml) became the first validated programme of the University at FHE in 1993. The MSc Real Estate Development in Europe (MREDIE) was validated in 1995 and the MA in Social and Community Studies (MSCS) was validated in 1996. As noted above (see paragraph 12), all three programmes have academic origins that predate their formal validations. At the time of the audit visit there were 13 students enrolled on the MI, 3 on the MREDIE and 7 on the MSCS. The MI programme is arranged through links between the University School of Computing Sciences and the Hogeschool Faculty Technik (Engineering and Technology), the MREDIE programme is arranged through links between the University School of the Built Environment and the Hogeschool Faculty of Economie and the MSCS programme is arranged between the University School of Health and Community Studies and the Hogeschool Faculty Gamma (Social Science, Health and Social Service).
15 The MI programme is a one year full-time award. The programme is largely delivered by FHE staff, although Dutch students on the programme are given the option of taking the extended project element, which is an integral part of the award, in the UK at the University. Most of the students take up this option. The audit team met several such students during the pre-audit visit to the University. The programme, which is managed through the Graduate School of the University’s School of Computing Science, is, according to University documentation, taught entirely in English (but see also below, paragraph 45). The team noted that the programme had been designated as a ‘franchise’in some University documentation. The team was advised by University staff that the programme had been termed a franchise before the development of a more extensive taxonomy of collaborative provision by the University. The description of the programme as a franchise had not been changed in University documentation, although in all respects it appeared to the team that it fell within the category of joint courses as currently defined and it is treated by the University’s quality assurance processes on the basis that it is a joint course. Staff of the University and FHE told the team that the programme had developed from a TEMPUS funded programme, involving a number of European institutions including the University and Eindhoven, to develop an MSc in Applied Informatics in Gdansk. Subsequently, new modules had been developed jointly by staff in Leicester and Eindhoven to meet the needs of the Dutch market, leading to the MSc Informatics, and these were validated in 1993. At the time of the audit, the last cohort of students was taking this programme; a part-time version was to be introduced from September 1997. The team was told that numerous meetings had taken place in the University and the Netherlands to develop the new proposal.
16 The MREDIE programme is a one year full-time joint programme delivered in English in both Leicester and Eindhoven. After an initial 12 week teaching period at the University there are intensive periods of formal contact of four weeks at FHE and two weeks in the University followed by a research project carried out in a third European country. The programme is managed through the University’s School of the Built Environment. The origins of the link between the University and FHE date back to 1991 when initial informal contacts were established. These were followed by an ERASMUS programmes staff and student exchanges, and joint research. FHE undergraduate programmes were the first European courses accredited by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in 1996. The audit team was informed that the programme was based on a University course with modifications to provide a European context. Staff of the Hogeschool described how the course development was collaborative with joint planning of new modules by University and FHE staff. The team was also told how the programme was being delivered collaboratively. For example, FHE staff teach for four to five days at the University and University staff teach during the four weeks at the FHE and help with the administration of examinations during the first of these weeks. Boards of study and examination boards are arranged for times when both University and Hogeschool staff are available. It is intended that higher education institutions from six countries will eventually participate, although at present only three Dutch students are registered.
17 The MSCS programme is a joint programme taught in English which can be studied as a 14 month full-time course (one year taught programme plus a dissertation) or as a 26 month part-time programme. The programme is delivered mainly at the Hogeschool, although it is planned that students will spend one week at the University. It draws upon the University’s long experience of offering an MA in Community Education. The programme commenced in January 1997. The partnership has its origins in longstanding ERASMUS (now SOCRATES) social work programmes involving joint teaching initiatives, staff and- student exchanges, conference participation and study group visits. The audit team was informed that the project to develop a European social work programme, adapted from the existing University course, was identified in 1995. This was followed by eight months of joint course development work. Staff of the Hogeschool described this as truly collaborative, with University staff and Hogeschool staff working in pairs to develop new modules, followed by numerous meetings to plan and gain a common understanding of the delivery of the programme. The team was also told how the delivery of the programme was collaborative, with University staff contributing in the Netherlands and Hogeschool staff visiting the University to plan new options and discuss progress.
18 Staff of the Hogeschool involved with the three programmes spoke of the support they had received from the University during the development of their programmes and continuing support during delivery. Staff involved with the MI programme described how there had been considerable involvement of University staff in the early days of operation, that this had reduced to necessary monitoring as the programme matured, but had now increased again during the planning of a new part-time mode. All of the staff told the audit team of a sense of shared academic ownership with the University of their programmes. They all also reported that they were entirely clear that, because the programmes led to awards of the University, they should comply with University regulations and procedures. Moreover, they reported that, in general, these regulations and procedures were well understood, had been fully explained, were consistently applied and were generally acceptable.
Collaboration with the Fachhochschule Bielefeld
19 The University collaborates with the Fachhochschule in the delivery of one joint programme of study, the MSc in Computer Aided Engineering Techniques (MCAET). Like the hogescholen in the Netherlands, the Fachhochschulen in Germany are public sector institutions specialising in professional and technical education, generally equivalent of UK undergraduate honours degree level. Like their Dutch counterparts, the Fachhochschulen are not, at present, permitted to offer postgraduate programmes. During its enquiries, the audit team was made aware of numerous collaborations between UK higher education institutions and the Fachhochschulen. Many of these links have resulted from EU development programmes.
20 The MCAET is a one year full-time joint programme through which students study the first semester in Germany, the second semester in Leicester and normally take their research project in the third semester in collaboration with German industry. The programme, which commenced in September 1996, shares modules with the University’s MSc in Software Techniques for Computer Aided Design. The origins of the partnership lie in research links and undergraduate exchange programmes between the School of Computing Sciences of the University and colleagues in the Fachhochschule Faculty of Mathematics and Technology and other partner institutions. At the time of the visit, five students were enrolled on the programme. Staff of the Fachhochschule told the audit team that the University had been responsive and helpful to their aspirations to offer a master’s level award in the general area of computer aided engineering. They understood this to be because of the existing synergy and good relations between the two institutions. They described a sense of joint ownership with the University of the academic programme but also indicated that they supported the view that, because the award is made by the University, the quality assurance systems and procedures of the University must apply. Whilst supporting the use of the University’s systems and procedures, they indicated that these were largely unfamiliar in the German system of higher education and that the Fachhochschule had needed some support in their implementation. This theme is touched upon again later in the report.
Conclusions on the origins and nature of the partnerships
21 The audit team studied the briefing papers supplied by the University outlining the origins of the various collaborations and discussed in more detail the development of the links with staff of the University and the two partners. The team concluded that the University had indeed taken a cautious approach to the development of the collaborative programmes with its European partners, basing each of the relationships upon extensive experience of collaboration in research and staff and student exchange. The team also concluded that the University had taken a clear strategic overview of its links. An indication of the effectiveness of the partnerships was demonstrated by the view of staff of the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven, that they would wish to continue the collaborations regardless of whether they gamed powers to award their own postgraduate qualifications in the future, and of the satisfaction of staff of the Fachhochschule. The team commends the University’s approach to the development of the four collaborative programmes, particularly with respect to the establishment of a balance between joint academic ownership and acceptance by its partners of, and compliance with, University regulations and procedures.
Initial approval, validation, monitoring and review
22 In its briefing materials, the University indicated that the quality
assurance procedures pertaining to joint programmes of study offered overseas
were the same as for in-house programmes, with special attention being
given to resource-related matters. These procedures are described in detail
in the University’s Academic Quality Assurance and Control Systems
Staff Handbook which was provided for the audit team and are summarised
in the University’s earlier audit reports (De Montfort University
Quality Audit Report (September 1995), paragraphs 31 to 47 and De
Montfort University Collaborative Provision Report (May 1996), paragraphs
30 to 51).
Initial programme approval
23 The University requires a Programme Steering Committee to develop planning and resource information on new proposals for consideration by the Academic Development Committee (ADC). The audit team was provided with documentary information which illustrated that detailed cases had been presented to the ADC, acting on behalf of the Academic Board, in relation to each of the four collaborative programmes being considered in this report. The minutes of the ADC provided a clear and helpful account of the discussions which had taken place and detailed the points of clarification sought by the Committee. It was evident to the team that those matters upon which the Committee had sought further clarification had been followed up before final approval to continue to formal validation had been given by the ADC. The University requires that endorsements of the proposals for new programmes are provided by supporting heads of schools. The team was provided with the documentary evidence to suggest that appropriate endorsements had been sought and duly provided in relation to the collaborative programmes being examined. Overall, it was evident to the team that the University’s procedures for new programme approval had been followed and that the ADC had been provided with sufficient information to make clear judgements on whether the collaborative proposals were consonant with the mission of the University and were generally sound. It was clear to the team that the programmes considered in this report met the University’s objective of ‘exploring new ways of promoting innovation in society locally, nationally and internationally’. However, the team considered that in view of the relatively small numbers subsequently recruited onto each programme, the University may wish to consider the merits of securing more detailed market information before committing resources to the validation and course development procedures that follow initial approval.
24 The audit team was provided with full documentation relating to the validation of each of the four programmes. Validation panels were established by the Validation Nomination Committee of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC). In each case, the panels included external representation (normally two, but only one in the case of the MI programmes validated in 1993). Senior staff from the partner institutions were included in all the panels. The panel for the MI programme was convened in Eindhoven, while the other panels met in Leicester. Where the main panel met in Leicester, sub-panels visited the partner institutions to assess the suitability of resources. The reports of such sub-panels were fully considered before final approval to commence a programme was given. In the case of the MCAET programme, although the Rector of the Fachhochschule was a member of the panel and was accompanied by the programme administrator, there were no staff representatives from the programme team present at the validation. The programme was presented to the panel by staff of the University’s School of Computing Sciences. Staff of the Fachhochschule indicated that it had been difficult for them to attend but that they had been briefed about the process and had gained further understanding at the resource visit. Nonetheless, the University may wish to consider ways in which staff responsible for the day-to-day operation of the programmes of study in partner institutions can attend validation events and whether a minimum number should be required to attend. The team considered that the attendance of staff from partner institutions at validation events could greatly enhance their understanding of quality assurance requirements and course operation.
25 The audit team was provided with full and detailed reports of each of the validation panel events. The reports detailed conditions which had to be met before the programmes could commence and also recommendations for consideration by programme teams. The team was supplied with clear documentary evidence to indicate that the validation conditions had been followed up and acted upon before final approval to commence programme delivery had been given. In the case of the MI programme, one of the conditions was that all course materials, in English, should be provided for the validation panel. In its supplementary papers, the University supplied clear evidence to confirm that this condition had been followed up at the specified time. In the case of the MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule, a condition that a revised student handbook be prepared was fulfilled jointly by the staff of the two institutions. In the case of the MREDIE, the conditions included a resubmission and reconsideration by a reconvened panel. This procedure was fully documented. From the documentation made available to it, it was clear to the team that the AQSC had carefully considered panel reports and monitored the validation process.
26 The audit team discussed with staff of partner institutions their experience of the University’s validation processes. They reported that they had been prepared well for the validation event by their University colleagues and that they felt at ease in validation meetings and sub-panel resource visits, whilst reporting that the process was ‘impressive’and ‘testing’. Staff associated with the MREDIE programme told the team that they had accepted the decision at the first validation that a resubmission should be required, and indeed stated that they saw this as the correct decision. They all confirmed that the University had been rigorous in its follow-up of validation conditions, that the reasons for the conditions were clear and acceptable and that they had discussed, or were in the process of discussing recommendations with University colleagues. The team was provided by the University with a report prepared by a senior member of staff of the School of Computing Sciences who had visited the Fachhochschule in November 1996 to monitor the progress made on the recently started MCAET. This report dealt with a number of monitoring issues, including consideration of validation recommendations. The report had been shared with staff of the Fachhochschule who were appreciative of support given in monitoring progress to date and advising on further development. The team concluded that the University had implemented its validation procedures fully and effectively for each of the four programmes under consideration, and would accordingly wish to commend the University for its consistent and rigorous approach to validation and for ensuring that the process was well understood by all of the staff involved.
27 None of the programmes considered in this report has yet been the subject of periodic review (see also, HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraphs 43 to 55). Three of the programmes were only recently validated and the longest standing programme, Ml, was validated in 1993 and would have been due for review in the summer of 1997. However, as noted above (see paragraph 15), the present full-time version of the programme is being replaced by a part-time version as from October 1997. The audit team was informed by staff of the Hogeschool that the validation preparations were well under way. The University has recently introduced a triennial review process. The team learnt that this was introduced too recently to be applied to the MI programme, but would be implemented for all programmes in the future.
28 All programmes approved by the University, wherever they are delivered, are required to complete a biannual programme log which addresses a series of quality indicators, gives consideration to external examiners’reports and sets out the future action plan for the programme team. The log for each programme is considered by the relevant school quality assurance committee which approves and, if necessary, amends the action plan. School reports on the outcomes of annual monitoring are considered by the AQSC which seeks, on behalf of the Academic Board, to develop an overview of quality matters arising from continuous monitoring activities.
29 Although three of the programmes are relatively recent in origin, the audit team saw documentary evidence to indicate that the University’s monitoring procedures were being followed. The team noted that, as required by the University for all collaborative programmes, the curricula vitae of newly appointed staff had been provided as part of the programme log made available by the partner institutions. The team discussed the programme log procedures with staff from the Hogeschool and was informed that the log was in use in all the programmes, including those that had commenced recently. They also reported that they had been supported by the University in understanding the operation of the log. In the case of MSCS, staff had been trained in advance. Staff confirmed that they had received feedback from the University and were well aware of actions and development required as a result of the monitoring of the programmes by the University. In the case of the MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule, University documentation indicated that the programme log had been commenced. However, in discussion with staff at the Fachhochschule it became clear that this had been done by University colleagues using monitoring data on recruitment and entry gained from the Fachhochschule and that the partner institution, whilst aware of the need for monitoring, were, as yet, unaware of the detailed procedures required. The team noted that the University had provided a copy of the University manual of Academic Quality Assurance and Control Systems which contains information on the programme log. Whilst noting that it was early days in the operation of the programme, the staff of the Fachhochschule may require support from the University in the full implementation of the programme log. In this context, the team understood that a staff development event planned at the University for the autumn of 1996 did not take place because of time constraints on staff at the Fachhochschule (the issue of staff development is considered further in paragraph 51). The team concluded that the programme log procedure was, or would in due course be, operating fully in accordance with University procedures and that staff in the collaborating partner institutions were, in general, well briefed on its operation and received feedback from the University on its outcome. The team noted with interest that there was an expectation amongst staff in the partner institutions that the University should monitor programmes leading to its awards, and this was an expected and acceptable part of the collaboration.
Approval of changes to programmes of study
30 Modifications to programmes of study are made according to approved University procedures (see also HEQC audit report De Montfort University (September 1995), paragraphs 46 and 47). The audit team found that these mechanisms were well known to, and understood by, the programme teams. For example, staff from one team at the Hogeschool were entirely clear that they had licence to change the content of modules provided the stated objectives did not change. They told the team that they would institute the approval of change procedures of the University if they proposed to change objectives, the assessment scheme or programme regulations. This view was similar to that expressed by staff at the Fachhochschule. The team concluded that, partly because of clear procedures and partly because of the working relationships of staff of the University and its partners, the University was well placed to monitor that the approved programme of study was actually delivered whilst allowing appropriate academic freedom for updating content.
Roles, responsibilities and communication
31 All of the four programmes have programme leaders who are members of the academic staff of the University. The programme leaders chair the programme boards of study and are responsible for the management of the programmes. They are supported in their role by associate programme leaders in the partner institutions who have delegated responsibility for day-to-day programme management matters in the partner institutions. The audit team noted that the School of Computing Sciences of the University issues a helpful and comprehensive paper entitled Administration of MSc Examination Boards and Boards of Study which had been provided to staff at the Fachhochschule. Staff teaching on the programmes from both the University and the partner institutions are members of the relevant programme board of study. The boards meet at least twice each academic year and the team was advised that, where practicable, attempts were made to arrange related activities during the same visit, thereby enhancing overall cost effectiveness. The team was informed by staff, and saw from documentation, that University staff attend the boards of study and programme assessment board meetings at the Hogeschool for the MREDIE programme and at the Fachhochschule for the MCAET programme and that the programme leader for the MI attends each of the three programme boards of study meetings per year at the Hogeschool.
32 All the programme boards of study have elected student representative members. As with the programme boards of study, the programme assessment boards have membership drawn from the University and the partner institutions. A senior member of staff from the relevant collaborating school of the University chairs each of the boards. The programme assessment board for the MI is the only one that had been in operation for any length of time at the time of the audit visits. The arrangements detailed in University procedures had been adhered to, the board meets in the Hogeschool, is chaired by the University Programme Leader and is attended by the external examiner and University staff who have supervised projects. In the case of the two recently started programmes at the Hogeschool, UK external examiners had been appointed in advance, and staff in the partner institutions had had contact with the externals either before the programme started or in the early stages of operation. In the case of the new MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule, the external examiner from the UK had also been appointed in advance and the audit team saw papers to show that the programme assessment board, properly constituted, had met to consider the results of first semester modules. Staff had yet to meet the external examiner, but this was because he had sent apologies for not attending the meeting (see below, paragraph 34).
33 The audit team enquired of staff at both the University and the partner institutions about day-to-day communications and was informed that there was regular communication by a variety of means, including electronic mail, facsimile, video conferencing and telephone. Staff of the University were approachable and supportive. The team was interested to learn of one innovative development in the MSCS programme whereby electronic mail student files had been established, accessible by Hogeschool staff, University staff and students. In general, the team found that those responsible for administration in the partner institutions were clear about their responsibilities in relation to local enrolment, registration with the University and the need to maintain records that linked to University systems. However, the team was informed that record keeping at the Fachhochschule was, as yet, not well developed and the University may wish to consider offering more support in the development of appropriate systems.
Student assessment and academic standards
34 All assessment for all four programmes is intended to be carried out in English and staff and students alike confirmed that this is in fact the case. As noted previously (see above, paragraph 32), programme assessment boards have been established for each of the programmes according to standard University procedures. The audit team saw a comprehensive guidance paper produced just prior to the audit visit by the School of Computing Sciences titled Administration of MSc Examination Boards and Boards of Study. Although not certain of the direct connection, the team noted with interest that this paper responded to an identified need at the Fachhochschule in the monitoring report prepared following the visit of the senior member of staff of the School in the Autumn of 1996 (see above, paragraph 26). Each programme has an associated UK external examiner who is a member of the assessment boards, is normally expected to attend, and has access to student work. The team noted that the external examiner associated with each programme had been appointed according to standard University procedures. In the case of the MCAET, the team saw programme assessment board minutes for the end of the first semester board meeting and observed that the external examiner had sent apologies (see above, paragraph 32). The team noted the care that had been taken to seek the signed approval of the external examiner to the recommendations of the board even though he had also previously seen the students’assessed work. External examiners are required to submit reports annually; in respect of the MI programme, which had been in operation for some time, the team saw clear documentary evidence that their reports had been submitted to the University and fully considered during the University’s annual review process. The team also noted that remedial recommendations had been followed up. External examiners’reports are, the team learnt, also routinely audited at University level. Staff at the Hogeschool informed the team that they received copies of the reports and discussed them with University staff. Staff in the partner institutions for all of the programmes clearly understood and supported the external examiner system.
35 The audit team was provided with documentation relating to the assessment of student work and discussed with staff the approaches taken. The team was aware that in the earlier audit report on the University’s collaborative provision (see HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraph 57) specific attention had been drawn to the system for the moderation of assessed work applied in the School of Computing Sciences and to the explicit assessment criteria used to assist the delivery of master’s programmes in overseas locations. The team was able to confirm that the system was in place for the MI programme and that, additionally, all assessments were approved by University staff and that the external examiner for the course saw all student assessed work. The team became aware of numerous other examples of good practice in assessment. The MCAET and MI programmes have in common clear published assessment criteria and grading schemes for all aspects of project work contained in the MSc Project Staff Guide and accompanying MSc Project Student Guide published by the School of Computing Sciences. All student assessed work on the MREDIE programme is double marked with University staff involved. On the MSCS programme, assessments are jointly set by Hogeschool and University staff and are marked by staff from both institutions against clear and comprehensive assessment grading criteria, with agreed written procedures in place for discussing and resolving any difference in marking. In the case of the MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule, the team learnt that assessments proposed by the staff of the Fachhochschule for the first semester in Germany are approved by University staff. Student work is moderated by University staff and any differences discussed before sending the work to the external examiner. The team welcomed this approach to establishing common standards during the first semester in Germany and the second semester in the UK. The team also noted that the establishment of a common understanding had been supported by a sharing of master’s level assessed work with staff of the Fachhochschule before the programme had commenced. The team would wish to commend the University for the range of good practices in assessment which support a common understanding of the University’s required academic standards for its master’s level awards. In particular, the team welcomed the written assessment marking procedures developed for the new MSCS programme, the detailed project management and assessment guidelines for the MI programme and the new MCAET and other initiatives to set common standards.
36 The audit team noted numerous instances where staff from the University had sought to explore and develop a common understanding of academic standards as applied to the collaborative programmes they were directly associated with. In particular, the team noted a commendable commitment to the monitoring and maintenance of standards. This reinforced the view reached in the University’s earlier audit report (see HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraph 59). Instances of good practice can be found throughout this present report relating to collaborative course development (see paragraphs 12 to 21), collaborative course delivery (see paragraphs 38 to 45), rigorous validation (see paragraphs 23 to 26), effective monitoring (see paragraphs 28 to 29), collection and action on feedback (see paragraphs 47 to 49), staff development (see paragraphs 51 to 52), the progressive development of a range of collaborations with each partner leading to common understanding (see paragraphs 11 to 21), professional body involvement in programmes related to MREDIE (see paragraph 16), and commonly understood approaches to assessment (see paragraphs 34 to 35).
37 Whilst commending the commitment of University staff and their colleagues to the maintenance of standards in relation to each of the programmes of study, the audit team was less certain of the University’s approach to ensuring the comparability of standards across the programmes. This point was also raised in the earlier audit report (see HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraphs 59 and 73 (vii)). The team, while recognising that the consistent application of systems and procedures by the University goes a considerable way to supporting comparability of standards, would nevertheless encourage the University to consider further the sharing of assessment criteria and generic descriptions for master’s awards amongst the programmes. In this context, the team noted the opportunity now presented to the University to develop common approaches with the incorporation of three previously independent hogescholen in Eindhoven into the new Fontys Hogeschool.
38 The audit team met the majority of the students studying on the four collaborative programmes, either at Leicester or at FHE and FB. In general, students informed the team that they had been attracted to the programmes because of their academic content, distinctive international flavour, the possibility of completing a master’s award in approximately one year, enhanced employment prospects, and the opportunity to study in English (see below, paragraph 45). Students reported that the promotional literature concerning the programmes that they had seen, either in English, Dutch or German, was accurate and fairly reflected their actual experiences on the programmes. The students reported that they had been interviewed prior to acceptance onto their programmes and that their English language abilities had been formally assessed. MREDIE students had been provided with a helpful optional additional English language programme at the University. In the case of the MI programme, prospective students had been involved in a helpful question and answer session with University staff. The team was informed by staff of the Hogeschool that this was a regular occurrence. Staff at the Fachhochschule told the team that they had used entry criteria set by the University during the recruitment process and that the University programme leader had met the students individually prior to carrying out formal registration.
39 Students reported that they had generally received a range of student-centred information at the outset of their programmes through, for example, student handbooks and an induction programme. The audit team noted that student handbooks consistently gave information on course content, assessment, regulations and general information on student support, but not always on academic appeals and complaints procedures. For example, the student handbook for the MSCS contains an annex of University assessment regulations whereas the handbook for MCAET does not and, therefore, provides no reference to appeals. The handbook for the MI refers students to the Course Leader for further information on the University’s assessment regulations, but the team observed that students from outside the UK, unfamiliar with UK systems, might not be aware that an appeal procedure could actually be found in the handbook. Students following the new MREDIE programme reported that they had received their handbooks late, but acknowledged that this was unlikely to happen in future years. The team understood that the handbooks had been prepared jointly by staff of the University and its partners and that they were valued by staff and students as source documents. However, whilst appreciating the wealth of course based documentation in the student handbooks, the team would suggest that the University also considers the inclusion of standard references to University-wide information.
40 While in some instances University staff had been directly involved in overseas induction programmes, for example for the MSCS, MI students reported that they had not met University staff in a teaching capacity until they had arrived in Leicester to undertake their dissertation projects. However, the audit team was told by Hogeschool staff that a member of University staff attending the first programme Board of Study meeting in Eindhoven always took the opportunity of giving a presentation to students on the University and the City of Leicester and ensured completion of registration forms. MI students also informed the team that they were provided with, and periodically used, electronic mail communications with the University programme leader.
41 MCAET students studying at the University and MI students undertaking projects at the University spoke very positively regarding the welcome and induction they had received upon arrival in Leicester and the help they had received in finding suitable accommodation. MREDIE students told the audit team that although induction to library and computing facilities was satisfactory when they arrived at the University, more general induction was lacking, for example the accommodation service was helpful but in a reactive rather than proactive way. In general, they felt that liaison between the University and the Hogeschool prior to their arrival at the University could be improved. The team noted with interest that the students’views had been noted by staff through both formal and informal feedback. The team understood that the staff were planning to improve the situation for the second intake of students. MSCS students are taught at the Hogeschool except for one week at the University late in the programme. This had not taken place at the time of the audit visit and the students were, therefore, not able to comment on the arrangements for the visit. They told the team, however, that their induction day at the Hogeschool had been helpful and that the attendance at it by the University Course Leader was appreciated. They also understood that, as a result of their feedback to staff, the induction programme would be extended to two days for the second entry. The MSCS students also reported that they had received individual letters of welcome from the University and that they received University newsletters. All students had received a University student card.
42 In summary, the team commends the University for the jointly planned approach to recruitment and induction, including many examples of good practice and the sensitivity to student feedback in the limited instances where problems occur. The University may wish to consider inclusion of more standardised University level material in student handbooks, for example in relation to academic appeals and complaints procedures.
Student experience on the programmes
43 Students whom the audit team met said that they found the programmes challenging compared to their previous experiences of undergraduate programmes in their home countries. The team learnt from students on the MI programme that although they were partly taught in common with the final year of an equivalent internal programme leading to a diploma, they were required to undertake more challenging assessments. Staff of the Hogeschool told the team that the common programme was a conversion course, postgraduate in level, which, because of the constraints placed upon the Hogeschool of making postgraduate awards, leads to a second diploma. Students following the MCAET programme told the team that, apart from the expectation that they should conduct their studies on a more independent basis, there had been no major change in teaching and learning approaches upon joining the University, following their first period of study at the Fachhochschule. The team commends the School of Computing Sciences for its comprehensive MSc Project Student Guide which complements the MSc Project Staff Guide (see above, paragraph 35). The guide contains detailed information on project development, management, supervision, assessment and dissertation style and is provided for students on the MI programme at the Hogeschool and MCAET students in the Fachhochschule. Generally, students reported that they received timely and constructive feedback on assessed work. Students on the MSCS programme were aware that feedback was from both Hogeschool and University staff (see above, paragraph 35). Students following the MREDIE programme, however, reported that feedback on assessment was slow. The team noted that this might in part be because of the moderation system in place (see above, paragraph 35), but the University may wish to consider ways of addressing this issue. Although the practice of external examining is at present not widespread in either the Netherlands or Germany, students told the team that they were aware of the UK system and the role played by external examiners in their programmes.
44 The audit team discussed with students the general support and tutorial systems in place on their programmes. All the students who met the team reported on good informal contacts between staff and students in their home institutions and, if they had spent time there, at the University. In addition, the team learnt of more formal processes between both staff and students. For example, the associate course leader at the Hogeschool holds a weekly clinic for MSCS students and there is an agreed schedule of tutorial meetings for MREDIE students co-ordinated across the period they spend at the Hogeschool and the University. Although MSCS students had not spent any time at the University when they met the team, they were all aware of a formal point of contact in the University, should it be required. The team noted with interest that, despite small numbers, informal processes are supplemented by structured approaches to student support. The students were generally aware of their rights of access to University support facilities.
45 Students whom the audit team met confirmed that all their assessments were undertaken in English. Students following the MCAET, MREDIE and MSCS programmes confirmed that they were taught in English according to the expectations of the University and indicated that they felt able to undertake assessment tasks in English. Students following the MREDIE programme informed the team that the use of English as the language of tuition was reinforced even to the extent of all notices on the course notice board in the Hogeschool being in English. Staff of the University, including a very recently appointed course leader, informed the team that while the MI course was primarily taught in English, some of the more informal student group work associated with the programme took place in Dutch. University staff, in expressing satisfaction with this particular arrangement, told the team that this explained an observation in an earlier audit report that the University might wish to review the guidance given to staff on the implementation of its policy that, unless special cases are approved by the Academic Board, programmes should be taught and assessed in English (see also HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraph 41).
46 In the light of its discussions with University staff and the observations made in the earlier audit report, the audit team was therefore somewhat surprised to learn from students following the MI programme that they were taught wholly in Dutch. The team was not made aware by staff of the University of any special dispensation from the University’s Academic Board to permit such an arrangement. The students informed the team that their prime concern about the programme revolved around an unsatisfied desire to be taught in English and to develop English language skills. The team discussed this matter with academic staff at the Hogeschool associated with the MI programme who informed the team that the current programme was indeed taught in Dutch. In part the team understood that this was because of some common teaching with another, in-house, programme (see above, paragraph 43) and the difficulty for some staff of teaching in English. The Hogeschool staff also informed the team that, contrary to the understanding it had gained from University staff, both the Hogeschool and University staff were aware of the problem and that they had been informed that the situation could not continue. In particular, they had been informed by colleagues in the University that the part-time programme, which is to replace the full-time programme from October 1997, must be taught in English. The team was reassured to some extent to find clear evidence that the School of Computing Sciences, which is responsible for managing the MI, is rigorously monitoring the MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule to ensure that delivery is in English. This was a topic covered in the monitoring report that resulted from a visit to the Fachhochschule and had even led to agreement that supplementary texts and videos should be translated into English. However, given that the students following the MCAET programme were some eight months into their studies at the time of the audit, the team could only conclude that there had existed some weaknesses in the University’s monitoring of the programme and implementation of its stated policy relating to formal teaching being in English. The University may wish to consider any further action that may be necessary to ensure that its policy on the language of tuition being English is followed in future.
47 The following observations on the mechanisms used to secure feedback from students should be read in the context of four full-time programmes with small student numbers and day-to-day opportunities for discussion between all students and their staff. The University requires that student feedback is collected, formally recorded, analysed and acted upon. The team explored how this was achieved with both students and staff of the two partner institutions. Students told the team that all the programmes had student representatives who attended the relevant programme board of study. In the case of the MI programme, student representatives had attended the board and received feedback. In the case of MCAET, a student representative had also attended the board meeting held in the first semester of the programme. Students following the MSCS programme reported that representatives had attended the board, had found the meetings helpful, had received feedback and had all received minutes of the meeting. MREDIE students, including their representatives on the Programme Board, reported that the procedures were operating well. The team noted that the monitoring report resulting from the visit to the Fachhochschule in November 1996 (see paragraphs 26 and 34) recorded student views and made recommendations for consideration by the teaching staff.
48 The University requires that feedback questionnaires are used for all of its programmes. The audit team heard that this questionnaire was consistently used at the Hogeschool for all three programmes, with the questionnaire issued locally and sent to the University for analysis. Feedback was provided to the staff of the three programmes via the programme log, by discussion between the Course Leader and Associate Course Leader and by discussion at programme boards with the Associate Course Leader present. Students following the MSCS and MREDIE programmes told the team that they received feedback on actions taken as a result of analysis of the questionnaire and, in the case of MREDIE, a student representative was present when the Programme Board discussed the questionnaire results. However, MI students told the team that, although they had completed questionnaires, they were unaware of any feedback or follow-up. Students following the MCAET programme at the Fachhochschule told the team that they had not yet received feedback questionnaires. Staff of the Fachhochschule told the team that, with only five students following the programme, informal feedback was effective and that, although some staff had used their own questionnaire, the University questionnaire had not been used. The staff indicated that they were not yet fully aware of the University’s requirements but would implement them given fuller support and guidance. The team noted that the University feedback questionnaire was available in the student handbook in the possession of Fachhochschule staff but that they were unaware of the necessary procedures. The University may wish to consider providing further support and guidance on the appropriate procedures (see paragraphs 29 above and 51 below which also relate to staff development to support implementation of University systems).
49 In the earlier audit report, the University was asked to consider the advisability of seeking ways of assuring itself that student consultative processes were working effectively and consistently across partner institutions (see HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraph 73 (ix)). In the case of the four programmes considered in this report, the audit team concluded that, given the small number of students, a generally consistent approach to student feedback is being adopted by the University. However, the University may wish to consider supporting the Fachhochschule further in the introduction of University feedback questionnaires.
Staffing and staff development
50 Checking the qualifications and experience of the academic staff who teach on the University’s collaborative programmes is a formal part of the initial approval and validation process (see also, paragraphs 23 to 25). As noted previously (see above, paragraph 29), the University seeks to maintain an annual up-date of new staff through receipt of their curricula vitae as part of the annual review process. The audit team concluded that the University was taking appropriate steps to assure the quality of those staff teaching on its programmes in the partner institutions visited.
51 The earlier audit report on the University noted many instances of good practice in staff development at programme level, some of which were associated with joint programmes at master’s level, including courses in computing (see HEQC audit report De Montfort University Collaborative Provision (May 1996), paragraph 61). The present audit team noted a large number of varied staff development activities relating to programme development, quality assurance, programme delivery, student assessment and maintenance of academic standards. Staff in the University’s partner institutions consistently reported their appreciation of the support they had received from the University. The team noted a small number of instances where the staff of the Fachhochschule needed additional support in the implementation of University systems, for example in implementation of the programme log (see above, paragraph 29) and student feedback questionnaires (see above, paragraph 48). The University may also wish to consider further support for the Fachhochschule in developing record systems (see above, paragraph 33). However, the team was told by staff of the Fachhochschule that a staff development event had been planned at the University for the Autumn of 1996, but that they had not been able to attend because of time constraints. They also noted that a second event was now being offered but that, again, it might be difficult for them to rearrange other responsibilities in order to attend. The University may wish to seek ways of ensuring that staff development activity with Fachhochschule staff is able to continue, including support for the local implementation of the programme log and the use of the standard University feedback questionnaire. Administrative and academic staff responsible for aspects of administration at the Hogeschool told the team that they were well supported in carrying out their responsibilities.
52 The audit team would wish to reaffirm the view that, at programme level, University staff associated with the four collaborative programmes considered in this report are very responsive to the needs for staff development in the Hogeschool and the Fachhochschule. The team noted that much of the staff development activity related to the individual programmes, including the development of a common understanding of academic standards within each joint programme. The University may now wish to consider a shared approach to staff development activity, identifying common needs and establishing a common approach to the maintenance of academic standards at master’s level-across these and other programmes. In this regard, the team noted the opportunity that now existed with three of the programmes being offered in one partner institution (see above, paragraphs 13 and 37).
Publicity, promotional material and certification
53 As noted previously (see above, paragraph 38), students following the four collaborative programmes advised the audit team that, in general, the promotional materials they had been provided with were accurate and gave a fair reflection of their experiences once they had joined the courses. Only MI students noted that the prospect of studying in English had not been fulfilled (see above, paragraph 45).
54 Staff of the University informed the audit team that all promotional literature for the collaborative courses was approved by the University prior to issue. Where necessary, material in the Dutch and German languages is approved for accuracy by Dutch and German speakers on the University staff. Staff of the two partner institutions advised the team that the University adopted a clear and consistent approach to the assurance of the accuracy of all promotional literature. The team saw a number of examples of what it judged to be high quality promotional materials which adopted a consistent approach to the use of the University’s and partner’s names and logos. Staff at the Fachhochschule told the team of a more relaxed attitude by the University to the approval of advertising materials, particularly in relation to opportunities to gain informal publicity in the local press. The team commends the University for its approach to ensuring that all promotional literature relating to its own awards offered jointly with the two collaborating institutions is checked for accuracy. While noting that descriptions of the MCAET and MREDIE programmes had been included in the University’s 1997 Prospectus of Postgraduate and Professional Programmes, the team was told that the MSCS programme had been approved too recently to appear in the prospectus. The team further noted that, although it had been approved in 1993, the MI programme also did not appear in the Prospectus. University staff told the team that a decision had been taken, at the time of going to press, to exclude the entry due to the fact that the programme was expected to recruit only Dutch students. The team would wish to encourage the University to continue to ensure that it maintains its Prospectus of Postgraduate and Professional Programmes in as up to date and complete a manner as possible.
55 In March 1997, the University’s Academic Board agreed a policy that award certificates should not indicate that a collaborative programme of study had been studied in a partner institution. The University justifies this approach by stating that the awards are of the same standard as those awarded as a result of studying on programmes delivered within the University. The audit team was provided with anonymised certificates which illustrated the consistency of application of the University’s policy, namely illustrating the approach already taken to certification of the Ml programme and anticipating that for MREDIE, MSCS and MCAET. In the spirit of the guidance given by HEQC in its Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education - 2nd Edition (1996) that, normally, certificates should indicate that programmes of study have been delivered in a partner institution, the team enquired of staff of the Hogeschool and Fachhochschule and students following the programmes whether they would wish to see the names of the partner institutions on certificates. The team noted a mixed view amongst staff at the Hogeschool and agreement by staff at the Fachhochschule with the University’s policy. Students, however, indicated that they would ideally like to see the partner’s name on award certificates. They indicated that they thought that the certificate would then be better understood by prospective employers and others in their home countries. The University may wish to give further consideration to its certification policy in the light of HEQC’s published guidance and the views of staff and students in its partner institutions.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
56 The audit team examined the quality assurance arrangements associated with four joint master’s level programmes, three offered with the Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven in the Netherlands and one with the Fachhochschule Bielefeld in Germany. The team commends the University for the general approach it has taken to the development of these joint awards. The team found a consistent application of University policy and quality assurance procedures and, within the policy and procedural framework, numerous instances and examples of good practice. In the small number of instances where the team has reported that it may be desirable for the University to consider further development, these are largely associated with the very recent introduction of three of the programmes.
57 The development of jointly offered master’s programmes in Europe clearly falls within the scope of the University’s mission and stated objectives. In the delivery of the programmes the University is working with mature providers of higher education and is supporting their aspirations to extend their activity to postgraduate level. The audit team would particularly wish to compliment the University on the achievement of a balance between a clear shared ownership of the academic programmes and a positive acceptance by the partners of the need to introduce, and comply with, the University’s quality assurance procedures, many of which are unfamiliar in a European context.
58 The audit team found clear and consistent evidence of application of the University’s validation and monitoring arrangements, operational arrangements and assessment arrangements. The University may, however, wish to offer further support to the Fachhochschule Bielefeld as it continues to implement the University’s procedures. The team found many examples of good practice in relation to the assessment of students and of managing the whole student experience from recruitment through induction to course operation. As it develops its systems further, the University may wish to consider the inclusion of University-wide information, for example on appeals, in student handbooks which already provide comprehensive programme level materials. The team found one instance where a programme was being delivered in a foreign language in contradiction to the University’s stated policy. Although the team understood that this was unlikely to reoccur, the University may wish to consider the desirability of reviewing its procedures to ensure that this is the case.
59 The audit team found that, in general, good student feedback processes were in place and that staff in the University and partner institutions were sensitive to student feedback, acted upon it and informed students of the outcomes. The team also found that the results of its own monitoring of the programme was fed back to the partners for purposes of quality enhancement. Staff of the Hogeschool and Fachhochschule were generally very appreciative of the sensitivity of their University colleagues to staff development needs during programme development and operation. The team noted many examples of good practice in staff development, often related to developing a common understanding of academic standards in each programme. There were also many examples of initiatives to support the staff of partner institutions in establishing a common understanding of standards, including well developed assessment criteria, double marking, moderation and sharing of assessment experience. The team noted the common and consistent approach to standards of master’s projects taken by the School of Computing Sciences in its two joint programmes, one at the Hogeschool and one at the Fachhochschule. As the three recently introduced programmes continue to mature, the University may wish to consider ways of developing common approaches to staff development and understanding of academic standards across the programmes.
60 Overall, therefore, the audit team concluded that the University’s quality assurance systems and procedures were working well and effectively in relation to the four jointly offered programmes of study considered in this report. The team would wish to compliment the University on the balance struck with its partners between joint academic ownership and an acceptance of the need to comply with University systems. The team would also wish to compliment the energy and enthusiasm displayed by those staff involved with the programmes and their contributions in developing many instances of good practice within the University’s overall regulations and operational framework.
Top