Higher Education Quality Council
HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIP AUDITS
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
and
KORELKO HELLANION, GREECE
DECEMBER 1996
ISBN 1 85824 337 8
PREFACE
The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) is collectively owned by the universities, colleges and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Established in 1992, the Council contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the quality and standards of the teaching, learning and student assessment for which these institutions are responsible, wherever and however academic programmes are offered. With this objective, HEQC undertakes 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 the scope of audit to include visits to the overseas partners of UK institutions, thus enabling the same enquiries to be made outside the UK concerning arrangements for quality assurance and the safeguarding of standards of the academic awards made by UK institutions.
A pilot programme of visits was undertaken between April and June 1996 to a sample of overseas partner institutions offering programmes leading to the awards of 15 UK institutions. This initiative has been designed to consolidate confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.
These audit enquiries were assisted by the publication in November 1995 of HEQC's 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 pilot programme of overseas visits.
Although the Code assisted audit enquiries, we do not claim that it is a definitive check list. Audit teams did not use the pilot visits to 'measure' participating UK institutions' compliance with the Code, since it was recognised that institutions might be reviewing their practice following the appearance of Code. The Code of Practice has been revised in the light of the findings from the pilot visits, and comments received from UK institutions and their partners.
UK universities and colleges who volunteered to participate in the pilot programme of overseas visits did so with the agreement of their overseas partners. The participating institutions covered a range of collaborative links, involving a variety of subjects, programmes and awards.
This report is one of 20 reports published from the pilot programme. It should be read in conjunction with HEQC's published audit report(s) on the UK partner, reference to which is made in this report. In addition, HEQC has published a separate overview report summarising the general findings from the pilot visits and noting examples of good practice and areas where further development will improve and strengthen current arrangements.
Because the audits were pilots intended in part to test an evolving method, the Council considers that it would be mistaken to use the reports as the basis for unconditional generalisations about overseas partnerships developed by UK institutions.
INTRODUCTION
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 Portsmouth and KORELKO Hellanion, Greece (hereafter referred to as KORELKO) to review how the University's quality assurance arrangements operate in respect of the courses listed in Appendix 1. The audit forms part of a series of pilot audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1996. The audit included a visit to KORELKO in May 1996. The Council is grateful to the University of Portsmouth and to KORELKO for their assistance and co-operation. Further information about these audits is contained on the inside cover of this report. Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the University, is attached as an annex to this report.
2 The academic quality assurance arrangements of the University of Portsmouth were the subject of an HEQC audit report published in 1994. A separate audit visit led to an HEQC audit report on the University's quality assurance arrangements for its collaborative provision published in 1995 (HEQC 1995 Audit Report).
THE AUDIT PROCESS
3 Prior to the audit team's visit to Greece the University provided briefing documentation on its relationship with KORELKO, and on how the University's quality assurance arrangements operated with respect to the collaborative programmes. The University agreed a programme of meetings between the team and staff and students of KORELKO. The team, which visited KORELKO on 30 May, comprised: Dr F R Burnett, Professor J E Forbes and Mr J D A McWilliam OBE, auditors. The report was co-ordinated for HEQC by Dr C J Haslam. Dr R J Brown, Chief Executive, HEQC, was present during the visit.
4 The audit team met individuals and groups at KORELKO, including senior teaching and
administrative staff and students from KORELKO and senior managers from the University. In all, the team met more than 30 individuals, some on more than one occasion.
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
5 In this report the following abbreviations are used:
ASC Academic Standards Committee;
FQAC Faculty Quality Assurance Committee;
KORELKO KORELKO Hellanion;
QAC Quality Assurance Committee;
the University the University of Portsmouth.
Throughout this report, reference is made to the University's Academic Collaborative Franchising and Validation: A Guide as 'the Guide'. The University uses the term 'course' to mean either a part or the whole of a programme of study depending upon the context; that usage has been retained in this report other than in places where to do so would lead to confusion.
BACKGROUND TO THE PARTNERSHIP
6 At the beginning of the 1990s, contacts between the Dean of Science of Portsmouth Polytechnic and KORELKO led to exploratory discussions, sanctioned by the Polytechnic's Directorate, on the possibility of entering into an academic partnership. A memorandum from the Dean in June 1991, with the approval of the Directorate, confirmed the intention of the Faculty to negotiate the mounting of a three-year programme of studies leading to a series of distinct awards. A Memorandum of Co-operation authorising KORELKO to deliver a University Certificate in Computer Science was signed by the Dean of the Business School and the Principal of KORELKO that August. The University considers it has entered a long- term relationship and is seeking to develop and strengthen its partnership with KORELKO.
KORELKO Hellanion
7 KORELKO is a private educational consortium founded in 1985, although some elements of the consortium have been in operation for considerably longer. It is an IIEK (a Greek Institute of Vocational/Professional Training) licensed by the Greek Ministry of Education to deliver specific training programmes which lead to vocational qualifications (Diplomas). A government agency, the OEEK, has responsibility for making periodic checks on the ability of KORELKO to deliver these programmes, on which approximately 3,500 students were registered at the time of the audit visit. One part of the KORELKO consortium, KORELKO Hellanion, administers the programmes of study and courses franchised from the University.
THE UNIVERSITY'S QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION
8 The University's Academic Collaborative Franchising and Validation: A Guide (the Guide) was published in 1994, drawing on earlier experience and was commended as a 'valuable summary of procedures and criteria for establishing and monitoring partnership arrangements' by the HIEQC audit team in its 1995 report on the University's collaborative provision (HEQC 1995 Audit Report). The Guide asserts the centrality of the Academic Council (and by delegation, its Quality Assurance Committee (QAC), the successor to the earlier Academic Standards Committee (ASC)) and faculty quality assurance committees in the control of academic standards in any collaborative venture.
Validation and approval arrangements for franchised provision
9 The University has developed an approach to the approval of programmes of study for franchises which disaggregates programmes into semester or year-long elements for approval in successive stages. This approach is referred to as 'staged' validation and 'staged' approval'.
10 In the University's view the chief benefit of a staged approach to validation and franchise approval is that it allows it to maintain close control over the development of the partnership. The University told the audit team that the staged approach it favours allows the panel charged with making a recommendation to take account of the franchisee's current standing with the University, and the nature of its responses to any conditions set by previous panels in making its decision. The University also considers that staged approval allows its partners to make the investments in learning resources required by the University to underpin programmes of study, in a gradual fashion, as recruitment rises.
Quality Assurance of Type 'A' franchises
11 The designation Type 'A' is applied to franchises of courses or programmes of study, which are taught within the University and, at the same time, through collaborative arrangements in other locations and which lead to a University award. Students under Type 'A' arrangements are registered at the University but study in the partner institution; for each student the partner pays the University an annual registration fee.
12 The quality assurance arrangements for approving a Type 'A' franchise take into account that as an internally offered programme, the curriculum and individual syllabi will already have been subjected to scrutiny by the University's normal validation and approval processes. Attention is normally focused on any amendments to course content required to meet the context of local delivery by a partner, and the learning environment within which the franchise will operate, including learning resources, staffing matters, administrative support, and communication arrangements between the partner and the University. For Type 'A' franchises the approval process primarily focuses on the approval of the franchise.
Quality assurance of Type 'B' franchises
13 The term Type 'B' franchise is used by the University to designate a programme of study or part of a programme of study leading to its award which has been developed in the University (sometimes in collaboration with the staff of one or more partners), for delivery in partner institutions. In the course of development, Type 'B' programmes are subject to the University's normal quality assurance procedures for validation and approval.
14 Type 'B' franchise proposals may include adaptations and amendments to content and syllabi to reflect the requirements of the partner and the context of delivery, which require formal validation and approval. In scrutinising a Type 'B' franchise proposal the panel's attention will extend to the partner's administrative arrangements for the course or programme of studies, staffing matters, assessment arrangements, monitoring and evaluation arrangements, learning resources, admissions policies and student progression.
Quality assurance of jointly-delivered programmes of study
15 The University offers its MBA in partnership with KORELKO as a jointly delivered programme. Such programmes are approved by the University in accordance with its normal quality assurance arrangements; they are delivered at the partner institution jointly, by staff of the University and its partner. The typology of the academic provision which the University has franchised to KORELKO is identified in Appendix 1.
16 Properly speaking, jointly delivered programmes are not franchises, in that the University retains direct control of the quality assurance and quality control of all their elements, and uses the facilities and some of the staff of its partner to deliver the programme. However, a record of the validation and approval of the MBA programme delivered at KORELKO was provided in the University's briefing materials and described the MBA as a franchise, as did other references to this programme. This suggested to the audit team that University staff undertaking the validation, approval and quality assurance of collaborative provision might not always receive sufficient guidance before undertaking this work.
17 The jointly delivered MBA has one Board of Studies and one Board of Examiners. Both are convened in Portsmouth and relevant staff from Athens travel to Portsmouth to attend its meetings. Quality control arrangements for jointly delivered programmes are therefore identical to those for programmes offered by the University on its own campuses.
Provisions of the Guide
18 The Guide emphasises the importance of clear reporting lines. Annual reports on the operation of franchises are made through the boards of studies or their equivalents from which the course or programme of studies have originated, to the relevant faculty quality assurance committee (FQAC). The Guide also contains a useful checklist, which specifies items to be scrutinised if no previous institutional validation has taken place, and ends with a section headed 'Monitoring', which requires that inter-departmental staff development events are organised at least annually, and that the flow of information is regular and efficient. The final requirement is for annual monitoring reports, to be submitted, together with evidence that they have been discussed by the partners and any necessary action taken.
INITIAL APPROVAL AND VALIDATION PROCESSES
19 During 1991, Portsmouth staff, including the chair of the then Academic Standards Committee (ASC), visited KORELKO on several occasions with a brief to establish the feasibility of approving the QEEK-approved diploma course offered by KORELKO for recognition, through Accredited Prior Learning, and credit as part of the University Certificate.
20 The University had sought advice from the local office of the British Council and the relevant department of the Greek Government to establish the level of the course offered by KORELKO which it proposed to validate. The audit team saw a memorandum arising from one such visit, and noted that some of those involved had advised a cautious approach. The University informed the team that at all stages in this initial, and in some ways experimental process, senior members of the University with operational and policy responsibilities for quality assurance had monitored developments. In August 1991, following a series of visits to KORELKO, a Memorandum of Co-operation was signed, which conditionally validated the Computer Science Certificate programme. In May 1992, the University's ASC reviewed the development of the franchise discussions, and agreed to consider the visits that had taken place in the summer of 1991 as conforming to its requirements for validation, and to give retrospective approval to the arrangement. At every stage in these initial contacts and subsequently, the University's approach manifested its awareness of the ethos and mission of KORELKO. The team was told that this particular development had been the University's first experience of an overseas partnership and franchise, and that subsequent developments had gained much from critical analysis of the procedures (formal and informal) that had been followed.
21 Subsequent approval visits resulted in conditional approval for the delivery of a Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) in Computer Science and a Certificate of Higher Education (CertHE) in Business Management by KORELKO. In January 1993, agreement in principle was reached for the establishment of a summer school of semester length (13 weeks) at Portsmouth which would enable KORELKO students to convert a DipHE in Computer Science to an honours degree. In June 1994 approval was given to run a further summer school which would allow students to convert a DipHE Business Administration awards to a BA (Hons) Business Management. In the same month, conditional staged approval was given for KORELKO to deliver a joint programme of studies leading to the University's MBA. Finally, in January 1995, the University's QAC recommended that a programme of studies leading to the University's award of Postgraduate Diploma/MSc Mathematical Sciences be delivered by KORELKO.
22 The formal comprehensive agreement establishing the terms and conditions for the franchising of programmes of study leading to CertHE and DipHE awards in Computer Science and Business Administration, and consolidating earlier individual Memoranda of Co-operation, was signed by the partners in 1993 and runs until September 1997.
23 In tracing the early stages of this first overseas franchise, the audit team was interested to learn that some of those on whom the University had relied to assess KORELKO's suitability as a partner had been expressly chosen for their knowledge of the Greek language, and that key documents from KORELKO's OEEK-approved programme, on which the University-validated and franchised programme was to be based, were translated for the other members of the panel. Advice on equivalent levels of attainment in OEEK-approved programmes had also been sought from the British Council in Athens. In the papers relating to the first franchise between the University and KORELKO, however, the team could find no reference in the reports it saw to the need for students in Athens to receive greater support and tuition in the English language, although the University was confident that such a recommendation had in fact been made.
Language of assessment and teaching
24 The audit team noted that some Computer Science modules taken by students at KORELKO were common to programmes of studies leading to both the OEEK-approved course and the University Certificate in Computer Science. Students informed the team that in their experience this could mean that more than 60 per cent of the teaching in studies for the University's Certificate could be in Greek, although they were examined in English. For all the various University courses delivered at KORELKO, other than the opening units of the University Certificate in Computer Science, the language of instruction and assessment is English. Members of the teaching staff at KORELKO who discussed matters relating to the use of Greek in teaching and assessment with the team agreed that some students had greater difficulty writing than speaking English, but nonetheless considered that the percentage of the programme of studies which led to the Certificate in Computer Science that would be delivered in Greek was less than that suggested by students. The team was interested to hear that students sometimes, quite naturally, prepared their answers to assignments in Greek and subsequently translated them into English for assessment.
25 Since the initial franchise of the University Certificate in Computer Science there has been considerable progress in familiarising students with the University's expectations for the delivery of course work and assessments in English. However, the audit team also noted recent calls from an external examiner for more stringent tests of the English language competence of applicants. The team found it surprising, therefore, that in the minutes of franchise approval panels which it saw, the need to test the likely competence of potential and enrolled students in spoken and written English did not seem to have arisen. The University's policy is that it does not accept work submitted in Greek for assessment. However, it does assign academic credit through Accredited Prior Learning to assessments completed for the Greek OEEK in Computer Science.
Staged validation and staged franchise approval
26 The University sees its staged approach to validation and approval as manifesting the caution with which it enters into franchise arrangements. This approach is, however, not without its attendant quality assurance costs. The number of approval events (and in the case of jointly delivered programmes of study, such as the MBA, full validation and approval events) is multiplied, with corresponding increases in administrative, travel and other requirements for the University and the franchisee. Moreover, it was apparent to the audit team that panel members could be confronted with potentially competing sets of priorities. The most obvious priority for panels is to approve proposals only after searching scrutiny and the satisfaction of any conditions. A competing priority, however, might arise from the needs of students. For example, where students have been enrolled on a programme subject to staged approval, panel members may have considered that the progression needs of the students were compelling. In one case considered by the team, the progression needs of the students had been seen by the panel as one of several reasons for approving progression of the students to the final stage of their course in Portsmouth.
27 The audit team acknowledges that the University's staged approach to the approval of franchise programmes stems from its wish to maintain close control over the development of its partnerships. However, the administration of this staged approach has occasionally led to uncomfortably short gaps between approval and the commencement of the provision under consideration, and to consequent unease on the part of members of the University acting as panel members. The University will wish to review the impact of its policy of staged approval on the quality assurance of its collaborative provision.
MONITORING AND REVIEW ARRANGEMENTS
28 All franchised programmes are subject to annual monitoring and periodic review on the basis of formal written reports, which may be incorporated in the reports of the University-based programme. Schedules attached to the Agreement between the University and KORELKO set out specific arrangements with respect to the maintenance of academic standards, administration and examinations. The University told the audit team that periodic reviews of collaborative provision provided opportunities to re-appraise not only the operation of the franchise in the partner institution, but also the aims and objectives of the course or programme of study.
Course leaders, course managers and academic co-ordinators
29 The University's administrative arrangements for monitoring a franchised programme of studies require the relevant course leader in the University to maintain regular contact with a designated course manager in the partner institution. This arrangement is supplemented by contact between lecturers in the two institutions in a pairing arrangement.
30 Course managers for collaborative programmes are appointed by the partner institution and approved by the University, which expects them to be responsible for the coordination, operation and management of the franchised courses and programmes of study. Responsibility for ensuring that the management and administration of the collaborative programme is conducted in accordance with the University's regulations rests with academic co-ordinators, appointed by the University.
Board of studies
31 The University expects its partners to establish a board of studies, based on those in operation within the University, to be responsible for considering annual and periodic monitoring reports before their transmission to the University. The formal agreement between the University and KORELKO requires a board of studies to be held at the institution at least twice each academic session. Where relevant, the sponsoring board of studies in the University considers the various papers produced by the board of studies at the partner institution prior to their incorporation within annual course reports. These are considered by the relevant faculty quality assurance committee (FQAC) which in turn reports to the University-level Quality Assurance Committee (formerly its Academic Standards Committee).
32 The normal arrangement at KORELKO is for each board of studies to meet after the corresponding board of examiners, either on the same day or very shortly thereafter. This has the added advantage that the external examiner can arrange to be present. The audit team also noted that it was normal practice for student representatives to attend for at least part of the proceedings, although not all the minutes of board of studies meetings record the presence of students, making it difficult to demonstrate that students were required to withdraw for items of closed business.
33 In a helpful developmental initiative, the University has encouraged members of staff at KORELKO to prepare the minutes of boards of studies. In all the reports it saw, the team noted the presence of members of the University at boards of study held at KORELKO, in some instances, in substantial numbers. The audit team commends the University for the general enthusiasm and commitment displayed by its staff and the staff of KORELKO to achieving the success and well-being of the partnership.
34 The University was unable at the time of the submission of briefing documentation to HEQC to supply the audit team with minutes of the MBA Board of Studies meeting for 1994-95 (the first year of operation of the jointly delivered programme at KORELKO). The team was surprised that reports from neither of the relevant boards of studies for the previous academic session appeared to be available for the MBA.
Scrutiny of franchises by FQACs and their equivalents
35 The audit team was provided with a copy of the 1994 validation of the BA (Honours) Business Management Summer School to which a critical review of the operation of the franchised programme at KORELKO had been attached. Responses to this critical review were evident in the improvements recorded by subsequent meetings of boards of examiners and boards of studies in their papers. It was not clear to the audit team, however, in what way the formal committee structure of the University monitored the progress of such matters other than through routine meetings of boards of studies held in Athens.
Monitoring arrangements for Type 'B' franchises
36 Franchised arrangements that have been designed by the University expressly for delivery through a franchise arrangement are monitored through boards of study attended by University staff. In some such cases, and in the developmental spirit noted above, boards of studies for University franchises at KORELKO have been chaired by the Chairman of KORELKO. It appeared to the team that franchised programmes designed specifically to be offered by a partner outside the UK must, by their very nature, lack many of the usual points of reference to be found within a British university. However an opportunity for providing such points of reference might be taken in the course of the impending modularisation by the University of its Type 'B' franchise courses. This process might create an opportunity for the University and its partner to compare and contrast the quality of delivery of modules with similar titles, and delivered at the same level and credit value, in the UK and in Athens.
Admission of students to University courses and programmes of study at KORELKO
37 The admission of students to University courses is the responsibility of KORELKO, acting in accordance with University policy and relevant course documents. The arrangements for registration with the University are determined by the University's Academic Registrar. The audit team was told that a certificate of competence in written and spoken English was required from all applicants, that a rigorous system of checking the authenticity of entry qualifications was in place, and that certified copies of relevant certificates were sent to Portsmouth as part of the registration process. In practice, however, students were admitted to the first year of the University Certificate on Computer Science under admissions requirements for the OEEK approved course and it was subsequently decided whether they should follow the Portsmouth programmes. The University may wish to assure itself that its admissions policies for the Certificate in Computer Science are followed by its partner.
Student feedback
38 The University provides staff at KORELKO with questionnaires which are administered to students and, following scrutiny by KORELKO in Athens, returned to Portsmouth for further analysis. Students who met the audit team recognised that changes had been made as a result of completing such questionnaires. Formal feedback is given to students through their representation on the boards of studies, although students could not recall for the team receiving any formal feedback from the University regarding the operation of their courses. Staff at KORELKO are, however, provided with summaries of the student feedback.
THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS
39 The briefing materials made available to the audit team included reports relating to the first assessment sessions for programmes taught at KORELKO. External examiners' reports had then drawn attention to the failure of some Greek students to attend examination sessions. The team also saw an invigilator's report relating to this period setting out the extent to which British methods of conducting examinations had been accepted by Greek students. The University's response to these reports had been thoroughgoing. Recent correspondence from the Acting Vice-Chancellor outlining procedures to be followed for examinations at KORELKO was provided for the team, and illustrated the rigour with which the University currently arranged for its assessments to be administered. Particular provisions of this correspondence included arrangements for draft examination question papers and mark schemes for Computer Science and Business Management to be sent from KORELKO to University course leaders for approval; for question papers subsequently to be forwarded for comment to external examiners, and for approved examination question papers to be sent to Athens with a senior University invigilator. In Athens the University required the senior invigilator to photocopy the master question papers and supervise the conduct of examinations. Examination scripts and coursework are second marked and moderated by University staff, a selection of whom attend examination boards in Greece, together with the relevant external examiner.
40 The audit team formed the view that the University had put its early experiences in assessing its students in Greece to good use in developing procedures which did all that could be reasonably expected to ensure that examinations are conducted in Athens according to the University's regulations.
External examiners
41 All external examiners are appointed by the University. For franchised programmes, the examiner appointed to examine the University's internal courses also acts as the external examiner for the programme in the partner institution.
Boards of examiners
42 For franchise Type 'A' provision, such as the MSc/PgDip Mathematical Sciences, and for the jointly delivered MBA, examination boards are convened at the University. For each element of franchise Type 'B' provision an examination board is convened at KORELKO. Boards for Type 'B' provision meet three times annually, and are chaired by an appropriately senior member of the University, with Registry staff from Portsmouth in attendance. Such boards are normally attended by the course team and external examiners and approve the student pass lists and recommendations for resits which take place shortly afterwards. External examiners' reports have commented on the difficulty of securing the attendance of all those teaching on the courses which is unsurprising in view of the substantial contribution to teaching teams made by part-time staff.
43 The audit team considered that the distinction between existing OEEK-approved and other KORELKO courses and franchised credit-bearing University courses, particularly the University Certificate in Computer Science, was not always sufficiently clear for students and those assessing their work to be confident which set of regulations applied, or for coursework to be moderated effectively. The University has made commendable efforts to advise students of the assessment schemes under which each of the University's courses operates, although information presented to the team suggests that in 1995, further scope for clarification remained.
Appeals procedures
44 Students who discussed the University's arrangements for appeals against the decisions of an assessment board with the audit team were not sure that they had received any information on this topic. The team was informed that the University provides information on appeals' procedures to be lodged in the KORELKO office.
Credit accumulation and transfer arrangements
45 The University's credit accumulation and transfer scheme (CATS) assigns 360 credit points to an honours level undergraduate award. In general, the University's modular programmes of study offer modules at level I, level II, and level III, equivalent to the levels reached in each of the years of a traditional three-year honours degree programme.
46 Typically, for their first two years of study, students in Athens following a Certificate in HE programme in Business Management study five modules rated at 15 credit points each, leading to the award of 75 credit points at Level I in the first year, with 45 credit points at Level I and 30 at Level II in the second year. Students following a Diploma programme will also take a mixture of Level II- and Level III-rated modules in their second year. In their third year of study, students may take 10 modules and gain 150 CATS points, 90 at Level II and 60 at Level III. Students intending to secure an honours degree may then take a University-designed summer school programme (rated at 60 credit points) at the end of their studies in Athens, accumulating 360 credit points in just over three years of study. The consequence of the compression and acceleration necessary to make this possible is that in some instances individuals must study modules at Levels I and II, and at Levels II and III, simultaneously.
47 It appeared to the audit team that students studying within the University and at KORELKO took equivalent units in different sequences. The University's view is that these arrangements do not present any untoward consequences for students. It also stated that units copied over from Portsmouth to KORELKO were studied there at greater depth and thus attracted more credit points, despite evidence to the contrary. The team considered that since students at KORELKO took more units per semester than their counterparts in Portsmouth this arrangement had the potential to create difficulties for staff and students in Athens. The University ill wish to re-examine the implications for its part-time students in Athens of the manner in which it has applied its CAT Scheme to the provision it has franchised to KORELKO.
STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT
48 KORELKO employs full-time and part-time staff on its own programmes, some of whom may also be employed to teach on the University's programmes in Greece. Briefing materials made available to the audit team indicated that the rate at which the composition of the teaching staff changed at KORELKO could at times be significant. The team was told that such departures were in part a consequence of KORELKO's determination to strengthen the group of staff delivering the University's programmes of study.
Staff appointment
49 The procedure for the appointment of staff at KORELKO involves the advertisement of vacant positions in English; the submission by applicants of a curriculum vitae and a supporting statement, and shortlisting of candidates for interview by the Administrative Director of KORELKO and the relevant course manager. The curricula vitarum of candidates selected for interview are submitted by KORELKO for approval to the University, which in addition is consulted informally at all stages in the appointment process.
Staff development
50 The audit team was provided with an example of a contract between KORELKO and the University for a particular course which provided for staff development events to be held in both Athens and Portsmouth. The team was also supplied with more general details of the arrangements for staff development at KORELKO which include thrice-yearly visits of members of staff from Portsmouth, annual visits by the external examiner and joint teaching activity on the MBA programme. Senior staff from KORELKO had made a number of visits to Portsmouth for staff development and other purposes. The audit team considered that in time such opportunities might with benefit be extended to administrative staff and more junior members of the teaching staff.
51 All newly-appointed members of staff in Athens involved with the University's franchised programmes of study rapidly enter into a dialogue with their University counterparts, particularly in relation to how the curriculum should be delivered and examined. KORELKO teaching staff who met the audit team indicated that colleagues in Portsmouth had briefed them thoroughly on the external examiner system and the UK system of degree classification. In line with the University's intention to sustain a long term relationship with KORELKO, it might wish to form a strategic overview of the staff development needs of teachers and senior administrators at KORELKO for discussion with its partner.
PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
52 Under the current formal agreement between the University and KORELKO the former has the authority to assess any advertising material relating to the franchised programmes. KORELKO has given the University an undertaking that it will conduct any marketing or promotion with due care and diligence. Many of the students who met the audit team had learnt of the courses offered through KORELKO in newspaper advertisements; others had learnt of the collaborative link with the University from friends.
CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
53 KORELKO is a substantial and long-standing provider of higher level vocational education and training in the private sector in Greece, specialising in education and training for finance, business administration, computer science and technology. Staff and students at KORELKO place considerable value on the benefits and opportunities arising from its partnership with the University of Portsmouth. For its part, the University is committed to international education on a long-term basis and sees academic and financial benefits in developing ways of taking programmes of teaching and learning to the student, and in developmental opportunities for University teaching staff.
54 The audit team considered that there was no doubting the strength of the University's intention to ensure consistency in the programmes delivered at KORELKO. In particular, the University exercises very close control over all aspects of student assessment, ranging from the setting of examination papers, through invigilation, to external examining and actions following external examiners' reports. This complements the work of boards of studies and boards of examiners for the University's courses and programmes of study at KORELKO. It is reinforced by a number of other factors, such as the pairings of cognate staff from both institutions and the active part played by staff from both the faculties and from the University's International Office.
55 The audit team found that from a modest beginning in 1991-92, the University's academic partnership with KORELKO had deepened and widened. At the time of the audit, the partnership was providing opportunities for a growing number of students in Athens to embark on a higher education with a UK university whilst remaining for part or all of their studies in Greece. At times, the pace of this development appeared to the audit team to have made considerable demands of key academic and administrative staff, to which they had responded with fortitude. As the University reviews its collaborative provision it may wish to reassess the costs and the benefits of the particular ways in which it has chosen to give expression to its collaborative strategy, particularly in its application of a staged approach to validation and the approval of franchises.
56 As relations between the University and KORELKO continue to evolve, opportunities for further developments and for the enhancement of existing arrangements may well present themselves, which the partnership will be well-placed to make use of. One focus for enhancement activity might be found at the point from which the partnership developed:
the University Certificate in Computer Science, where the University may wish to consider the merits of making the early parts of the Certificate more clearly distinguishable from those of its OEEK-approved precursor. Another possible focus for developmental activity might be found in a reconsideration of the present application of the University's academic Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme to University provision at KORELKO, where the University might wish to satisfy itself that the requirements the Scheme makes of students are not unreasonable.
Appendix 1
KORELKO (Hellanion), University of Portsmouth Courses as at 1 June 1996 (data supplied by the University).
| Course | Type | Date approved |
|---|---|---|
| Certificate in Computer Science | Franchise B | 1992 |
| Diploma in Computer Science | Franchise B | 1991 |
| Certificate in Business Management | Franchise B | 1992 |
| Diploma in Business Management | Franchise B | 1993 |
| BSc Computer Studies Internal approval | Internal University (Summer School) | 1993 |
| BA Business Management Internal approval | Internal University (Summer School) | 1994 |
| Review of Computer Science programme; Cert/Dip HE in Computer Science and BSc Computer Studies |
Franchise B Internal University (Summer School) |
1994 |
| MBA Stage 1 | Joint delivery | 1994 |
| Review of Business Management programme Cert/Dip HE Business Management | Franchise B | 1995 |
| BA Business Management | Internal University (Summer School) | 1995 |
| Pg Dip/MSc Mathematical Sciences (Part time) | Franchise A | 1995 |
| MBA Stage 2 | Joint delivery | 1995-6 |
Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the University, is attached.
COMMENTARY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH ON THE QUALITY
AUDIT REPORT
Introduction
The University of Portsmouth is one of the more important providers of international higher education and is justifiably proud of its achievements in this field. The University is committed to the maintenance of the highest quality on all its programmes irrespective of whether they are delivered in the UK or internationally. The University therefore welcomed the opportunity to be selected for the pilot audit of one of its partnerships overseas. It was pleased to be able to offer its five-year collaboration with Korelko, Hellanion to the HEQC for consideration in this context. It is also grateful to the management and staff at Korelko, Hellanion who cooperated willingly in the audit process and made facilities available for the audit team. The University would like to thank HEQC and the audit team for their comments and observations which have formed the basis for further refining our collaborative ventures with our fifteen overseas partners. The report will receive full consideration by the internal committees of the University and will be made available to all of our partners as a part of our continuing management of the quality of all University programmes.
Commentary
The University commenced a review of the quality assurance procedures for its external collaborative programmes in 1995-6. As a part of this review the Guide referred to in the report has been revised and updated in the light of the considerable experience which the University has acquired in the past five years. The new edition will be scrutinised in the light of this report and the forthcoming new edition of the Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision.
The University's Quality Assurance Committee has already established a group to oversee and coordinate its collaborative work with Korelko. The group has already met twice in the current academic year. It has begun to address the tasks which the audit has subsequently raised. The matters raised in paragraphs 45-47 were addressed in July 1996. The University will have regularised credit accumulation arrangements in time for the start of the 1997-8 academic year for all students on the undergraduate programmes to which the report refers.
Other matters rightly identified by the audit team have been addressed as a part of the continuing and deepening relationship between the two institutions. At the time of audit, arrangements were in hand for administrative staff to visit the University for staff development and two academic staff were also about to spend short periods on staff development in the University. Staff development has attained greater significance for both partners and has increasingly complemented the more direct instruction and information aspect of staff training which characterised early years of the partnership.
The University notes the concerns over "staged validation" made in paragraphs 26-7 of the report. While recognising the issues here, the University would wish to continue to use this practice where circumstances demand. It is a tried and tested method of ensuring that the collaborative relationship develops over time as required by the contract. It also allows the University to protect academic standards and to regulate a partnership more effectively during the crucial early years of collaboration. Part of the audit team's understandable concern was based on the premise that the summer school course was developed solely as a collaborative venture. This 60 credit, Level 3 course was developed as an internal programme and the final approval was the last stage in an internal process lasting several months. Staged approval is only an initial process which is followed by a review of the programme (see Appendix 1) and further reviews every 3-5 years.
The University wishes to clarify the fact that it makes no award on the basis of material delivered or assessed in the Greek language. Only in the case of the Certificate in HE in Computer Science has the University accredited through APL recognition the OEEK programme. The University and Korelko, Hellanion had already decided to move to a discrete programme in Computer Science although this was not a matter in the University submission to HEQC or raised during the audit. The University will continue to ensure that its courses are delivered and assessed in English in its partnerships. The University recognises that it will often be appropriate for the vernacular language to be used to assist and supplement the learning process. The University would never wish to suggest that exclusively English language textbooks are used when there are excellent foreign language texts. Therefore it follows that the University would wish to encourage the use of all means of communication to enable students to learn effectively and to acquire the standards of knowledge and understanding necessary for its awards.
Top