Preface
Quality Assurance of Overseas Collaborative Provision
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 a collaborative partnership between the University of Essex and the British Council Teaching Centre, Athens, for the purpose of offering a Foundation Year Programme for the University’s BSc Mathematical Sciences in Greece. It forms part of a series of audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1997. The audit included a visit to the British Council Teaching Centre in Athens, in June 1997.
2 This audit of the partnership arrangements between the University of Essex and the British Council Teaching Centre (the Teaching Centre) examined the policies and procedures used by the University to satisfy itself of the academic standards and quality of its Foundation Year Programme being offered in Greece. Students in Athens who complete the FY Programme in Athens successfully receive a certificate of attendance from the British Council Teaching Centre and are qualified to enter a number of specified degree schemes at the University, chiefly within the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences.
3 The Council is grateful to the University of Essex and to the British Council Teaching Centre, Athens, for their assistance and co-operation.
Abbreviations and glossary of terms
4 The following abbreviations and technical terms are used in this report:
AAU: Academic Audit Unit of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals;Apoliterion: Greek school leaving certificate examinations;
ASC: Academic Standards Committee;
BSc MS: BSc in Mathematical Sciences;
CVCP: Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals;
FYMEB: Foundation Year Management and Examination Board;
SMCS: School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (of the University of Essex);
Teaching Centre: British Council Teaching Centre, Athens;
IELTS: International English Language Testing Society;
Pan-Hellenic Examinations: State-administered examinations for Greek students intending to enter higher education programmes.
5 Throughout the University, programmes of study leading to a named award are termed ‘degree schemes’: this terminology has been used in the present 1997 report. The University’s Foundation Year Programme in Athens is referred to in its papers and the materials of its partner by a variety of terms, including ‘Foundation Year’, ‘Year 0’, and ‘Access Programme’. In this report the term ‘Foundation Year’is used throughout, and the suite of courses which comprise the Foundation Year is referred to as the ‘Foundation Year Programme’and in its abbreviated form as the FY Programme. The matter of terminology as it affects this programme is discussed further in paragraph 64, below.
6 Following initial discussions, the University provided HEQC with documentation describing the origin and development of its partnership with the Teaching Centre of the British Council, Athens. At a briefing meeting to discuss this material, the audit team proposed a programme of visits to the partner institutions in the UK and in Greece and sought additional contextual materials to extend its understanding of the structure and processes of the University’s quality assurance arrangements for this aspect of its overseas collaborative provision. The team also consulted the unpublished report of the academic audit of the University conducted by the Academic Audit Unit (AAU) of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) in 1992 and information published by the University on the World Wide Web.
7 To prepare for the visit to the University’s partner in Greece and to check its findings after its visit to Athens, the audit team held discussions with a number of individuals and groups at the University of Essex including the Vice—Chancellor; the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Academic Standards; the Dean of the School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences (SMCS); the Head of the Department of Mathematics; the Head of Access; the University Admissions Officer; the Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance); and members of the Department of Mathematics and SMCS. The team also met students who had progressed to the University from the Foundation Year in Athens. During its visit to the British Council Teaching Centre in Athens, the team met the British Council’s Deputy Director Greece; the Teaching Centre Director; the Assistant Director of Studies; the British Council Education Information Officer; the Access Course Supervisor; the Access Programme Supervisor; tutors delivering the programme and students following it. In all the team met more than 50 individuals, some on more than one occasion.
8 The audit team comprised Dr R M Allen, Professor A Gale, and Mr A Jones, auditors, and Ms D Cerqua, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Group, accompanied the team and co-ordinated the audit for HEQC.
The university context for collaborative provision
9 The University’s Institutional Plan, which is published annually, is its central planning document comprising the Mission Statement and sections on the planned academic, financial and physical developments of the University for the following four years. The University’s Institutional Plan for 1996 to 2000 is an extensive and far-reaching document and in the year preceding the audit had led the University to undertake a major planning exercise, with the development of new strategies and procedures in many areas of academic and administrative activity.
10 The University’s Mission Statement commits it to strive for excellence in research and teaching in selected disciplinary areas, in its graduate education and training, in the fostering of inter-disciplinary and comparative studies, in the international character of its academic provision and student body, and in its contributions to the educational and cultural needs of its region.
11 At the time of the present audit, the University told the audit team that current overseas collaborative arrangements had arisen from departmental initiatives rather than as a result of a central University policy to promote such links, and that since it had only a few such arrangements it had not yet felt the need to set out a formal policy on such matters. As a result, proposals for collaborative activity have been considered by the University on a ‘case-by-case basis’. At a meeting of the Academic Standards Committee of Senate in June 1996, however, it was agreed to recommend to Senate that, in future, any new proposals for collaborative arrangements with overseas institutions, and any proposals to renew existing agreements, should be considered by the Committee as well as by the relevant School Board, before approval.
12 The Institutional Plan for 1996-2000 makes no explicit reference to plans in relation to overseas operations and senior members of the University told the audit team that it intended to adopt a cautious approach to expanding the number and range of its collaborative arrangements, m part because of its recognition that this would entail significant additional management and monitoring costs.
Systems and arrangements of quality assurance
13 The University’s arrangements to assure the quality of its academic
provision were the subject of a CVCP Academic Audit Unit Report in 1992 which
has not been made public which was not made public by the University.
14 Since 1992, the University has put in place a number of formal procedures to support quality assurance. The Academic Standards Committee (ASC) of the Senate was set up in the Autumn of 1994. It stands between the boards of the University’s six schools, which are the principal units through which its teaching and learning is managed, and which are responsible for oversight of the activities of its 16 departments. The membership of the ASC consists of the deans of the schools, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Standards (since July1997 the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic)), and the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research, together with student representatives. It reports directly to the Senate and acts on behalf of the Senate in scrutinising academic standards. Executive responsibility for ensuring the overall integrity and effectiveness of the University’s policies and procedures for quality assurance is vested in the ProVice-Chancellor, Academic Standards.
15 In July 1995 the University established a Quality Assurance Office, the primary responsibilities of which include servicing the ASC, administering departmental and degree scheme reviews and, in due course, developing a University Quality Manual (see below, paragraph 31).
16 The initiation of the partnership between the University of Essex and the British Council Teaching Centre, Athens (the ‘Teaching Centre’) resulted from the timely coincidence of the interests of the partners. In Spring 1993, the University had recently approved a proposal from the Board of the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (SMCS) to establish a Foundation Year at Colchester Sixth Form College for an integrated four-year BSc in Mathematical Sciences (henceforth, BSc MS). This was designed to assist students who lacked traditional mathematical qualifications to enter the University’s BSc MS. and thereby to increase the number of students entering the University to study mathematics. The Foundation Year was designed in such a way that having completed it successfully, students could either proceed to the second year of the four-year BSc MS degree scheme at the University, or into the first year of one of a limited range of other closely related three-year degree schemes available in the School. Further franchises of this Foundation Year to other local colleges were considered a possibility at the time.
17 Simultaneously, the British Council in Athens was becoming aware of
an increasing demand within Greece for UK higher education. In early 1993
letters were sent by the British Council in Athens to a number of UK universities
to discuss possible links. The demand for courses and programmes of study
which would allow Greek students to progress to degree level studies in
the UK was considered particularly buoyant and, in correspondence with
the University, representatives of the British Council in Athens expressed
an interest in ‘moving into the area of higher education’.
As a result, the Admissions Officer of the University and the Head of Access,
who was also a member of the Department of Mathematics, visited Athens
to discuss the possibility of establishing an arrangement with the Teaching
Centre similar to that newly approved for delivery at Colchester Sixth
Form College.
Formal agreement
18 In June 1993 representatives of the University and of the Teaching Centre agreed a record of extensive discussions, referred to subsequently as a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’. The Memorandum set out the nature of the programme, confirmed that the syllabus would be that approved by the Senate and that it was to be taught in English; speculated about likely student numbers; set out procedures for moderation, assessment and quality control; specified the membership and terms of reference of a Management and Examination Board for the FY Programme in Athens; described arrangements for staff recruitment, induction and development; and specified the entry requirements for students and the fees to be charged. The University approved the proposal to operate this FY Programme in Athens in July 1993, following consideration by the Dean of the School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences, acting on behalf of the School Board.
19 In addition to the Memorandum, the University also concluded a legal licence with the British Council in July 1993, in which the University was the Licensor and the British Council the Licensee. The licence lapsed two years later, apparently inadvertently and without note on either side, and was subsequently renewed in March 1997. The University subsequently told the audit team that measures were being put into effect to ensure that it had effective procedures to monitor the currency and validity of the legal instruments formally establishing its collaborative arrangements. Such measures would undoubtedly minimise the possibility of such a lapse recurring, and the University will wish to consider the necessity of expediting their introduction.
The British Council Teaching Centre, Athens
20 At the time of the audit, the British Council had been established in Athens for more than 50 years. It provides a general service for UK universities and colleges, giving advice and assistance, for example, through its Examinations Department, and disseminating information to the UK and within Greece through its Library and Information Services. Many UK higher education institutions seek advice from the British Council when considering partnership arrangements in Greece, and it advises Greek citizens, organisations and agencies about UK higher education. Further services are provided through the Council’s Arts Unit and its Teaching Centre. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the British Council have recently issued a joint Statement of Understanding, in which the two bodies have agreed the common goals of UK universities and the British Council as sustaining the international reputation of UK higher education for high quality and reliability; maintaining and enhancing market share; and identifying and developing appropriate new markets promoting new forms of delivery.
21 The British Council Teaching Centre has been in operation in Athens for more than 20 years. It has sections dealing with General English, Translation, English Literature, Teacher Training, Business Communications and Higher Education. Its major provision relates to English Language courses for a wide range of adult and young learners. It also provides higher education programmes in partnership with a small number of UK institutions. This role as a provider of UK higher education has developed during the 1990s.
22 Whilst the Teaching Centre has more than 2,200 students overall, fewer than 100 are registered for its higher education programmes, of which the largest component is the FY Programme it delivers on behalf of the University of Essex. Senior members of the British Council in Athens told the audit team that the Council perceives the high reputation it enjoys in Greece generally, and the rigorous standards of the programme which it delivers on behalf of the University of Essex, as providing an exemplar of good practice for UK higher education institutions operating in Greece, and that its own operations allowed the Council in this instance to ‘advise UK institutions from their own experience’. The Teaching Centre is cautiously seeking to expand its delivery of higher education, and considers that it will remain a ‘very small player’in the market for the provision of private sector higher education in Greece.
23 At the time of the audit, the University’s partnership with the Teaching Centre was its largest collaborative venture, with 58 students registered in Athens, although this number was expected to rise to perhaps 75 in the next academic year. The audit team noted with interest that 13 per cent of the University’s total student population and 68 per cent of the University’s non-UK EU student population was of Greek origin. More than 70 per cent of the students currently following the BSc Mathematical Sciences had progressed to study at the University from the FY Programme in Athens. The University’s FY Programme is delivered in Athens by a team of three full-time and three part-time tutors, supported by the full-time and part-time staff who deliver the associated English for Academic Purposes programme.
24 As already indicated, the basis for the FY Programme franchised to the Teaching Centre in Athens lay in the earlier proposal of the Department of Mathematics to establish a four-year degree scheme leading to a BSc (Hons) in Mathematical Sciences. The curriculum for the proposal had been developed by members of the Department in collaboration with staff of Colchester Sixth Form College, one of whom is a former member of staff of the University and several of whom are its former students. That proposal set out detailed aims; outlined recruitment opportunities; discussed the quality of the staff at the College; set out admission requirements; outlined key course units and their contents; and suggested educational weightings for individual units. This proposal was approved by the Board of the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences in February 1993, and by the Academic Planning Committee of the Senate and the Senate itself shortly thereafter.
25 Approval to operate a version of this programme in Athens was given by the Dean of School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences in July 1993, acting on a request from the University’s Admissions Officer and its Head of Access. This request was accompanied by supporting evidence in the form of the curricula vitae of the two individuals the Teaching Centre proposed to employ to deliver the programme, and the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’, together with correspondence faxed to the University from the Teaching Centre clarifying the responsibilities of the Centre and the University. At that time it was considered that the FY Programme might also be offered at British Council centres in Patras and Thessaloniki as well as in other countries with a British Council presence. By the time of the audit, it had been agreed not to pursue these possibilities.
26 In addition to the curriculum approved for delivery at Colchester Sixth Form College, the programme approved for delivery by the Teaching Centre in Athens included a course, ‘English for Academic Purposes’(EAP), designed by the Teaching Centre to develop students’language skills in reading, writing, listening and speaking to the level at which they could perform effectively in a UK academic environment. The EAP course must be successfully completed by students wishing to progress to the second year of the four-year BSc Mathematical Sciences in Essex; it is, however, a Teaching Centre course, and is therefore not under the direct control of the University.
27 The University’s consideration and approval of the FY Programme at the Teaching Centre predated the formation of the University’s ASC; however, before the licence for the FY Programme offered in Athens was renewed in March 1997, the programme was scrutinised by the Committee (see below, paragraph 29). A report submitted to the Committee by its Secretary stated that the first cohort of students from Athens would be graduating from the University in the Summer of 1997, and noted that experience of the programme had so far been largely positive.
28 The audit team discussed the distribution of responsibilities for the FY Programme with members of the University and the Teaching Centre. It was told that the administrative, teaching and quality assurance arrangements to support the programme were intended to ensure the separation of the University as the programme provider and the assurer of quality and standards, from the British Council as the ‘high quality deliverer of the University’s programme’and that this was designed to provide a clear and, in the Council’s words, ‘exemplary’model for other foundation level programmes of study in Greece.
29 In approving the renewal of the licence, the ASC noted that, henceforth, regular opportunities for reviewing the FY Programme would arise in the context of the University’s recently introduced arrangements for quadrennial school degree reviews (see below, paragraph 31). The ASC also considered a draft statement on the operation of the programme, the ‘Operational Guide’, which had been prepared by the University’s Head of Access in close consultation with the staff of the Teaching Centre overseeing the FY Programme.
30 The audit team was told that the Operational Guide was intended to act as a concise record of the academic and administrative arrangements supporting the University’s Foundation Programme in Athens, and that in future it might provide a template for further collaborative ventures by the University. The team was also told that the Operational Guide had been compiled with the requirements of the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education in mind, and that it was the intention of the University and the British Council Teaching Centre that the Operational Guide should serve as an example of good practice for other UK higher education institutions seeking to establish foundation programmes in Greece. The team noted that the ASC had seen the Operational Guide, but had not formally approved it; consequently, it was not entirely clear to the team what the status of the Guide was at the time of the audit, particularly since changes to the curriculum and the administration of the programme were taking place on a continuing basis. The University may wish to consider the advisability of providing clearer guidelines for its staff and partners on its requirements for the formal documentation of its collaborative programmes.
Monitoring and review arrangements
Reviews of departments and degree schemes
31 The University operates a number of processes to carry out periodic reviews of the work of its departments and the progress of individual degree schemes. Departmental reviews take place ‘approximately every seven years’and were introduced by the University in the late 1980s. They are conducted on the basis of a report on its teaching, research and management submitted by the department under scrutiny to a specially convened University Review Committee, composed of senior members of the University and external peers.
32 At the time of the AAU audit in 1992, the University did not have the means to review individual degree schemes. In 1993-94 the University established a system of degree scheme reviews, through which it intended to review all its degree schemes by 1998-99. In December 1996, to support this process, the Senate approved revisions to the system of school degree reviews, requiring the establishment by ASC of ‘standing degree review committees’(SDRCs) for groups of related undergraduate Schools and the Graduate School, to receive and scrutinise reports from departments on their degree schemes. Under this procedure, reports of SDRCs are submitted to the ASC for its consideration. ASC may approve a reviewed degree scheme for continuation (normally for five years) or may recommend to the Senate that it be discontinued; ASC may make other recommendations as appropriate to the particular scheme. After 1998-99, when the first cycle of reviews will have been completed, degree schemes will be reviewed every four years.
Reviews of the Department of Mathematics and the
BSc Mathematical Sciences
33 As part of the University’s programme of departmental reviews the Department of Mathematics was reviewed in 1987. A further review did not take place between 1994 and 1996 because the Department was undergoing re-structuring, but the University intends to review the work of the Department in the near future. The BSc Mathematical Sciences has yet to be reviewed by an SDRC, but the audit team was told that when such a degree scheme review did take place, both the Colchester and Athens Foundation Year programmes would form an integral part of its remit. The team noted with concern the lack of any formal review of the general work of the Department of Mathematics for nearly ten years, or of the BSc Mathematical Sciences since its inception in 1993, and considered that this was likely to have reduced the range of information available to the University as it sought to maintain and enhance the quality of its provision and the standards of its awards.
Annual monitoring of degree schemes
34 Within the University the board of each school is formally responsible for monitoring the progress of the degree schemes based within the school. The board is chaired by the relevant dean and membership includes the heads of the constituent departments, representatives of students following degree schemes based within the school and elected staff representatives. School boards meet at least termly and more frequently if necessary. The annual review and report of the Foundation Year Management and Examination Board is submitted to the Board of the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences for comment and approval (see below, paragraph 35). The audit team was surprised that the University did not appear to have conducted any systematic comparison of the activities and standards of the two instances of the same FY Programme, particularly since in recent years a number of Greek students had travelled to Colchester to follow the UK-based version of the FY programme.
Foundation Year Management and Examination Board
35 In 1993-94, at the beginning of the FY Programme, and in keeping with the provisions of the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’between the University and the Teaching Centre, a Foundation Year Management and Examination Board (FYMEB) was established, based in Athens. The FYMEB is responsible for monitoring the administration of the courses which comprise the Foundation Year programme, monitoring the progress of students, approving summative assessments and preparing an annual review and report to the British Council Athens and the Board of the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences. The procedures followed by the FYMEB relating to the monitoring of student progress, the consideration of extenuating circumstances and plagiarism accord with those specified in the University’s Progress Procedures handbook.
36 The membership of the FYMEB includes the Director of the British Council Teaching Centre, who acts as the Chairman, the two senior Teaching Centre staff delivering the Foundation Year in Athens and the Co-ordinator of the EAP course. The University is represented on the FYMEB in Athens by the Head of Access (see below, paragraph 46). Comparing the membership of the FYMEB in Athens with its equivalent for the Foundation Year offered at Colchester Sixth Form College, the audit team noted with interest that the Chair and the majority of the membership of the relevant committee for the FY Programme offered at Colchester Sixth Form College consisted of academic staff from the University’s School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences and included a representative of the Economics Department.
37 From its discussions with members of the University and the Teaching Centre it appeared to the audit team that there had been in practice a devolution of authority to the FYMEB in Athens, which had not taken place within the corresponding franchise of the Foundation Year in Colchester. The University will doubtless wish to review the rationale for this difference in practice between the two franchises and may wish to consider the necessity of reviewing the membership of the FYMEB in Athens in order to ensure that it fully reflects the various subjects contributing to the programme1 and the University’s responsibility for the academic quality of both franchises (see below, paragraph 51).
38 Students wishing to enter the FY Programme must have achieved an average score of 16 in the Greek Apoliterion examinations and a score of 17 in Mathematics. Appropriately qualified applicants are invited for an interview, conducted by one of the two senior staff operating the programme in Athens. Applicants are given written tests in Mathematics and English, the former to test their aptitude for problem solving and analytical skills. The test is performed interactively on a one-to-one basis so that the interviewer can form a picture of the candidate’s approach to the questions and together the test and the interview are designed both to assess the applicant’s motivation and to provide career counselling and information. The parents of candidates may participate in the interview procedure.
39 Candidates may be accepted whose formal qualifications fall short of the above examination requirements if their interview performance and their performance in English and Mathematics is acceptable. Candidates whose English requires remedial attention are required to join an additional language programme. The University retains the right to refuse an application for entry to the course and applications of those who satisfy the Access Course Supervisors are seen by the University’s Head of Access whose decision on applications is final. It was clear to the audit team that the University considered that the quality of the students admitted to the programme was a significant factor in supporting and enhancing the maintenance of its academic standards, and had devised and implemented commendably rigorous admissions procedures to support that position.
Collection of feedback from students
40 The University requires each department to establish a staff student liaison committee, to meet on a termly basis and report to departmental meetings. There is no equivalent body for gathering the views of the now considerable number of students in Athens, although the University’s Moderator holds meetings with students during his visits to Athens. It seemed to the audit team that the establishment by the University of more formal means of gathering the views of Foundation Year students on their experiences of teaching and learning would now be both timely and advisable.
41 The British Council has developed standard questionnaire forms for its courses, through which it seeks the views of its students on the instructor’s performance for the unit and in particular their perceptions of the organisational, preparation, communication and analytical skills demonstrated by the tutor. Students are also invited to discuss and compare their perceptions of their own performance with those of their tutor, to comment on the tutor’s performance, and to propose ways in which the course might be improved. Whilst providing an opportunity for students to report on the quality of teaching, the forms are also part of the British Council’s own strategy for staff development.
42 In 1996 the Teaching Centre produced a detailed document, Suggestions and Complaints: Policy and Guidance Notes which provided examples of the range of complaints that a student might wish to make and advised students and staff on how to deal with them. The document reflects the Centre’s stated commitment to operate as an ‘open organisation, willing to listen to our customers and staff and learn from our mistakes’.
43 The audit team met Foundation Year students studying at the Teaching Centre in Athens and students at the University’s UK campus who had completed the Athens FY Programme. Both groups viewed the FY Programme in Athens as having been well-organised and exacting in its demands on them. They expressed warm appreciation for the work of the Teaching Centre. Students who had progressed to the University considered that the FY Programme had provided and effective preparation for the remainder of their degree studies.
Management of the FY Programme in Athens
44 In monitoring and reviewing the programme, the University has relied
upon the visits of its Moderator and the commitment of the two senior staff
employed by the Teaching Centre to manage the FY Programme and who had
initially carried out all the teaching required: the ‘Access Course
Supervisor’and the ‘Access Course Director’. Whilst the
audit team was able to conclude that the three postholders had conscientiously
and effectively discharged their responsibilities, it was also evident
that the quality assurance of the University’s FY Programme in Athens
had been over reliant on the informed and informal links between these
three individuals.
45 The University has recently decided to make a number of adjustments to the role of the Head of Access in relation to the FY Programme (see below, paragraph 46) and to involve an additional member of the teaching staff of the School in this work. However, the changes proposed by the University appeared to the audit team to have been determined by events rather than the results of a wider understanding of the measures needed to secure the quality assurance of the FY Programme in Athens, such as the separation of liaison functions from those for monitoring and assessment. As the FY Programme continues to grow and develop, the University will wish to consider the necessity for the School of Mathematics and Computing Sciences to have closer formal oversight of the programme in Athens and the need to reassess the monitoring and review arrangements for the FY Programme in their entirety.
Academic standards and the assessment of students
Quality assurance of the University’s collaborative provision in Athens: the roles of the University’s Head of Access
46 The University’s Head of Access has accepted responsibility for the discharge of a wide range of quality assurance functions in relation to the University’s FY Programme in Athens. Since the commencement of the Programme in 1993, he has made at least two visits to Athens each year to undertake a variety of tasks including the observation of classes, the inspection of students’work, and meeting with individual students, if requested. The Head of Access also prepares an annual monitoring report on the operation of the FY Programme in Athens, which he submits to the Dean of the School of Mathematical and Computing Sciences and, through the Dean, to the Board of the School. The Dean is free to identify any aspect of the report for transmission to the ASC. It was evident to the audit team that the energy and care with which its Head of Access had carried out his various duties had been central to the University’s ability to be confident of the quality of its provision in Athens.
47 The audit team noted that historically the Head of Access, who is also the University’s Moderator for its provision in Athens (see below, paragraph 55), had been the primary advocate for the course and the principal link person and negotiator on a range of matters between the University and the Teaching Centre. The team was told that the present audit had provided the University with an opportunity to review the operation and management of the FY Programme in Athens and that as a consequence a Scheme Director had been appointed who would progressively take over many of the responsibilities currently carried by the Head of Access. The team welcomed this decision, which it viewed as signalling the University’s recognition of the potential danger of relying on one individual to perform such a wide range of roles, and the urgent need to establish a formal separation between the responsibilities for liaison with its partner, for monitoring the progress of the FY Programme and for moderating the assessments of its students in Athens.
48 When the FY Programmes were initially approved it was intended that students at Colchester and Athens should undertake identical assessments. In practice, however, differences in the organisation of the teaching year in Greece and the UK have made it necessary to set separate examinations for each cohort of students.
49 The assessment requirements for each unit in the FY Programme are set out in the Operational Guide. Assessment is both formative and summative and includes short tests, quizzes, regular homework, end of term examinations and practical exercises, in addition to formal examinations. Students in Athens told the audit team that they received prompt, detailed and, in their view, helpful feedback on their assessments. Students whose performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory receive formal warnings from the University on the advice of one of the senior staff delivering the programme in Athens.
50 Members of the School of Mathematics and Computing Sciences set the examination papers for FY Programme students in Athens (see below, paragraph 55). For the FY Programme offered in Colchester, examination papers are set by members of the Sixth Form College, subject to the approval of a member of the University’s Department of Mathematics. Notwithstanding the different arrangements for setting examinations that the University has adopted for each FY Programme, the close involvement with each FY Programme of the same small group of staff from the Department of Mathematics has provided a means of maintaining comparability of standards between them.
51 In Athens, overall responsibility for the approval of formative and summative assessments rests with a member of the FYMEB and all examinations are invigilated by British Council staff; no tutor invigilates the examinations taken by his or her own class and measures are taken to minimise the risks of plagiarism or other forms of cheating. In both Athens and Colchester, students’scripts are marked using schemes drawn up by members of the School, and members of the Department of Mathematics second mark all scripts. The audit team noted that the membership of the FYMEB included no subject experts from the University in the areas of the Economics of Business or of Information Technology which form part of the FY Programme (see above, paragraph 37).
52 The University’s Head of Access reviews the performance of individual students in the course of his regular visits to Athens, together with the Supervisor and the Director of the FY Programme. These reviews are in addition to formal discussions of student progress in the FYMEB. In previous years, when the number of students entering the FY Programme in Athens was smaller, the Director and the Supervisor had the capacity to review and analyse the performance of individual students and the comparative performance of the small groups in which the students are taught in Athens. With the steady growth in the numbers entering the FY Programme over the last two years, the teaching team delivering the programme has also expanded. In these circumstances, the Teaching Centre has chosen to retain the small class teaching which has served it and its students well.
53 Notwithstanding these changes, the FY Programme’s Director has continued to carry out detailed tracking and analyses of the performance of students in Athens. It appeared to the audit team, however, that in the absence of internal double-marking systems in Athens which would enable direct comparison between tutors, and without the presence of all tutors at the FYMEB, the University’s previous ability, through the FYMEB, to ensure comparability of standards within the FY Programme in Athens might have been weakened. The team’s concerns were not diminished by the lack of formality with which the FYIVIEB appeared to conduct its business, or by its understanding that the FY Programme might well expand in numbers. The University will wish to consider the necessity of greater formality in the means through which it safeguards the standards of its FY Programme in Athens, as the latter expands both its students and its staffing support.
54 The audit team was interested to learn that the performance in summative and formative assignments of students who had begun their studies in Athens was monitored by the Department of Mathematics throughout their subsequent studies. Members of the Department who had reviewed this assessment data considered that the satisfactory performance of students who had progressed from the FY Programme in Athens offered convincing evidence that the measures the University had taken to safeguard the standards of the programme in Athens were effective or, as it was put to the team, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. This suggested to the audit team that the University might be placing undue reliance on such information and might be able to detect any departure from its standards only after the passage of a number of years. The team also noted that there appeared to be very little awareness of the comparative performance of the students on the Colchester and Athens versions of the franchised FY Programme. The University may wish to consider the merits of undertaking such comparisons, as an additional means of monitoring the standards attained by students on the two branches of its FY Programme.
Moderation of assessment and examination grades
55 The formal assessment responsibilities of the University’s Head of Access, in his role as ‘Moderator’, include monitoring and approving the content of end-of-term examinations set by the FY Programme Director and Supervisor; ensuring that end-of-year examinations for the Mathematics components of the FY Programme are set by a member of the Department of Mathematics; and arranging for examinations in Information Technology and Economics of Business, set by the staff of the Teaching Centre delivering the FY Programme, to be scrutinised and approved by the University. In the course of the Moderator’s annual visit to Athens in June, he ensures that the marking schemes provided by the University have been uniformly and accurately applied by the staff of the Teaching Centre and reviews any cases of marginal performance. The marks of students in Athens (and Colchester) and the recommendations of the FYMEB are referred to the First Year Examinations Committee of the SMCS ,which decides whether students can proceed, resit examinations in September or should be referred to the Progress Committee of the School, with a view to being required to withdraw from the University.
56 In some of the University’s briefing materials, including the Operational Guide, its Head of Access, when acting as the Moderator, is described as performing ‘the traditional external examiner function’in relation to the FY Programme. Members of the University who discussed the role of the Moderator with the audit team also appeared to view his function as that of an ‘external examiner’. The use of the term ‘external examiner’to refer to the Moderator, who is the University’s Head of Access and a member of the Department of Mathematics, appeared to team to be doubly unhelpful to the University and its partner, in that it implied that there was an element of ‘externality’in the University’s arrangements to maintain the standards of the FY Programme (that is, external to the University). At the same time, the team considered that the notion of associating an ‘external examiner’with what is in practice Year 0 of a four-year degree programme might be confusing for the staff of the partners and for third parties seeking to understand the level and standards of the FY Programme. The University will wish to consider the advisability of reviewing how it describes the functions performed by the Moderator in relation to its FY Programme in Athens.
57 As noted elsewhere in this report, students in Athens who successfully complete the FY Programme in Athens receive a certificate of attendance from the British Council Teaching Centre and are qualified to enter a number of specified degree schemes at the University, chiefly within the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences (see also below, paragraph 65). Members of the School consider that the intellectual demands of some of its degree schemes are more or less rigorous than those of others and, accordingly, from time to time the Board of the School has decided to vary the pass mark for entry to particular schemes. For example, in September 1995 the Board decided that students wishing to enter the first year of the Mathematics and Finance pathway of the BSc Mathematical Sciences from the FY Programme in Athens should be required to achieve a mark of 70 per cent over all three courses taken, a decision which the audit team noted, was later approved by the University’s ASC.
Staffing and staff development
58 The teaching staff presenting the programme at Athens are employees of the British Council but the University receives the curriculum vitae of each and specific criteria have been agreed for appointment. Applicants are usually interviewed by the University’s Head of Access. Recent appointees have also been required to have their classroom performance observed prior to formal appointment. Individual appointments must be confirmed by the University, usually through the Head of Access. The Access Course Supervisors have also been appointed as Associate Teachers of the University of Essex, an honorary appointment which they appreciated.
59 Members of the teaching staff of the Teaching Centre are required to undergo teaching observations at least annually, where the object is to foster the exchange of ideas, improve course co-ordination and promote teacher development. Observations are made by the Teaching Centre Director, Access Programme Supervisors or another peer, and officially recorded on a master observation form and filed. Student evaluations may then be combined with the lesson observations to provide a profile of the tutor’s attributes and skills.
60 The staff of the Teaching Centre associated with the FY Programme meet at the beginning of each term to review term results, exchange good practice and improve course co-ordination. There is also a series of weekly meetings of the staff responsible for individual subjects, at set times and dates. Staff may apply for funds to support training and development. This may include attendance at workshops and courses, presentation of papers at conferences, membership fees for organisations and subscriptions to journals. The Access Course Supervisor and the Access Course Programme Director visit the University annually to meet administrative and academic staff.
61 Staff development arrangements are supported through the Teaching Centre’s
Professional Development System, in which an annual ‘Team Job Plan’is
agreed every September. At the end of the academic year an evaluation of
the Team’s performance, drafted by the Team, the Access Course Supervisor
and the Access Course Director is submitted for approval to the Director
of the Teaching Centre. Whilst the audit team welcomed the documentary
support for this co-ordinated approach to staff and Team development, discussions
with teaching staff did not suggest to it that they were aware of the arrangements.
The University will wish to encourage its partner in the full implementation
of its approach to staff development, particularly in the light of the
projected growth in staff and student numbers associated with the FY Programme.
Publicity and promotional materials
62 The Licence endorsed by the two partners enables the British Council Teaching Centre to market and promote the course in Greece. The advertising and promotional literature seen by the audit team stressed the range of opportunities at the University of Essex for students successfully completing what is described in all published documents as the ‘Access Programme’.
63 As noted in paragraph 5 above, the University’s briefing materials used a variety of terms to refer to the FY Programme. These include: ‘Foundation Year’, ‘Year 0’, and ‘Access Programme’. The promotional and advertising copy used by the British Council in Greece describes the FY Programme as an ‘Access Course’chiefly, so it was said, to distinguish it from the large number of ‘foundation courses’offered by private education institutions in Greece, in partnership with UK higher education institutions.
64 The audit team found that members of the University and the Teaching Centre were aware of the potential for these varied descriptions to confuse staff, students, and third parties. This awareness did not, however, extend to the possibility that the use of different terms might have implications for the University’s quality assurance arrangements and for the operation of its Regulations. For example, the use of the term ‘Access Course’might be held by a student or third party to imply that successful completion of the programme provided access to one or more of the UK higher education institutions which subscribe to the provisions of UK access consortia, or to a substantial number of the University’s own degree schemes.
65 As noted elsewhere, successful completion of the FY Programme provides students with the opportunity to progress to one of a number of the degree schemes linked to the integrated BSc MS. The audit team noted with interest that the brochures used to promote the FY Programme in Greece also advertised opportunities to continue through the FY Programme to study Physics and Biology at the University and opportunities to study in Thessaloniki. Discussing these statements with members of the Teaching Centre and the University in Athens, the team was told that it was unlikely that there would be a demand for entry to such courses but that if such demand became manifest, an appropriate programme of studies would be constructed in order to admit students. These claims raised the prospect for the team that the University might be required to undertake the rapid development and validation of an appropriate programme de novo in order to give effect to the offer made through the brochure, although a member of the University ascribed the claims to ‘overenthusiasm’on the part of its partner. The University will doubtless wish to satisfy itself that the claims made on behalf of its courses and degree schemes in Greece are accurate.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
66 The partnership between the University of Essex and the British Council Teaching Centre in Athens is based both on the wish of the University to provide access to its School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences for well-prepared students from non-conventional backgrounds, and the desire of the British Council to enter the competitive Greek market for foundation-level courses, with what it perceives to be a superior programme offering guaranteed exit routes. Both partners have achieved their goals to some extent, with the Teaching Centre and the University experiencing increased recruitment beyond their earliest expectations. The University now finds itself potentially with over 100 students from the FY Programme in Athens on the three years of its BSc Mathematical Sciences in Colchester. In seeking to assure the quality and standards of the FY Programme, the partners have emphasised the need for a strong admissions process, a closely specified curriculum supported by good facilities, and a rigorously designed and administered programme of assessments.
67 The careful selection of students for admission to the FY Programme, together with the University’s monitoring of their subsequent performance on its degree schemes, constitute the primary means by which the University of Essex has been able to establish and maintain the academic standards of its FY Programme in Athens. This success has, however, been critically dependent on the energy and dedication of a very few key individuals at the University and the Teaching Centre, possessing between them detailed knowledge of the history and operation of this partnership.
68 The informal, and sometimes unclear, processes put in place by the University to monitor the operation of what was initially a small Programme, are now less appropriate to an expanding staff and student base. In particular, the conflation of developmental, monitoring, and assessment roles has diminished the University’s ability to provide formal means by which it can assure itself that the quality of the FY Programme is being maintained.
69 There can be no doubt that the academic standards of this Foundation Year Programme have been set and are being maintained by the University at a high level For the University to continue in its confidence, bearing in mind that a significant proportion of the students on its degree schemes in the School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences are recruited through this route, will require it to review and revise its current dependence on strong individuals and informal links in favour of a more structured and systematic approach.
Top