Higher Education Quality Council

HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIP AUDITS
UNIVERSITY OF WALES, SWANSEA
and
ATHENS CAMPUS WALES, GREECE
DECEMBER 1996

ISBN 1 85824 340 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 Wales Swansea (hereafter referred to as UWS) and Athens Campus Wales (hereafter referred to as ACW) to review how the University's quality assurance arrangements operate in respect of the provision set out in appendix 1, which is the focus of the partnership. The audit forms part of a series of pilot audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1996. The audit included a visit to ACW in May 1996. The Council is grateful to the University of Wales Swansea and Athens Campus Wales 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 processes of UWS were the subject of an HEQC report published in 1993. At that time, the engagement of UWS in collaborative and partnership provision appeared to fall entirely within the remit of the federal University of Wales, the audit of which followed in 1994. There was therefore no separate HEQC audit of the collaborative provision of UWS.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

3 Prior to the audit team's visit to Greece UWS provided briefing documentation on its relationship with ACW and on how the quality assurance arrangements of UWS operated with respect to its collaborative programmes. UWS agreed a programme of meetings between the audit team and staff and students of ACW. The audit team, which visited ACW on 21 May 1996, 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 D W Cairns. Dr R J Brown, Chief Executive, HEQC, was present during the visit.

4 The audit team met members of staff and students of ACW, including the Director of Studies; full-time and part-time teaching staff; and students following foundation courses and registered for programmes of study leading to undergraduate and taught postgraduate awards. The team also met a member of the teaching staff of UWS on full-time secondment to ACW. 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

DAC Deans' Academic Committee (of UWS);

UWS University of Wales Swansea (formerly University College, Swansea);

VU UWS Validation Unit

THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

6 As with other colleges of the University of Wales, the academic organisation of UWS and certain aspects of its quality assurance processes are required to conform to the federal University's procedures, which cover, amongst other things: the final approval of programmes of study; the award of first and higher degrees and University certificates and diplomas; the approval of the assessment regulations for awards; and the appointment of external examiners. UWS is responsible for determining its own mechanisms for the assurance of quality.

7 Within UWS, its Senate has delegated responsibility for the regulation, teaching and study of subjects to its faculties, subject to review. In December 1992, the Senate of UWS established a Validation Unit (VU) under the chairmanship of a Vice-Principal (now a Pro Vice-Chancellor). The VU is responsible for:

i) advising the Senate (via the Deans' Academic Committee) on all matters relating to the validation/franchising/outreach of subject/degree schemes of study at undergraduate and post-graduate level offered at selected centres within and outside Wales;

ii) all quality assurance matters relating to validation/franchising! outreach provision the operation of which has been approved by the VU.

The VU determines the criteria and procedures used in the validation process. It gives preliminary consideration to all submissions made to UWS and decides whether or not to recommend to the Senate the acceptability of such submissions. The VU is responsible for establishing joint boards of study, the task of which is to monitor the development and assessment of collaborative programmes. It nominates external examiners through a committee of the UWS Senate, the Teaching Committee, and presents an annual report to the Senate for onward submission to the Council of UWS.

BACKGROUND TO THE PARTNERSHIP

8 The AKMI Schools Organisation and Pagoulatou-Vlachou SA, based in Athens, initiated discussions with representatives of the VU of UWS early in 1994. The Pagoulatou-Vlachou SA schools were established in 1966 to provide commercial language training, and are reputed to be the largest such organisation in Greece with over 3,500 students. They occupy their own premises in Athens and run a publishing house producing a range of EFL material. The AKMI Schools Organisation has been operating since 1972, offering a range of courses at diploma and certificate level. It occupies purpose-built accommodation in Athens and has a subsidiary in Patras. It has approximately 1,500 students. At the time that UWS entered into the relationship, the AKMI Schools Organisation and Pagoulatou-Vlachou operated on some nine sites throughout Athens with a library of some 8,000 volumes.

9 Discussions between the consortium of AKMI Schools Organisation, Pagoulatou-Vlachou SA, and UWS, produced a formal agreement, signed on 6 October 1994, to collaborate on the delivery of foundation and other programmes of study between UWS and a subsidiary of the consortium known as Athens Campus, Wales (ACW).

10 From its inception, the academic relationship between UWS and ACW has been intended 'to provide an academic community [in ACW] where students can expect a first-rate academic experience, high quality support services and a congenial environment in which staff and students are able to work to their fullest potential and ... students make a positive contribution to the wider community and the professions in Greece and elsewhere.'

INITIAL APPROVAL AND VALIDATION PROCESSES

11 The procedure followed by the VU for the consideration of franchise arrangements is that on receipt of a proposal seeking such an arrangement, a panel of specialist assessors visits the proposing institution and prepares a report with recommendations for the VU, which would then make a final decision whether or not to proceed.

12 The preliminary discussions between the AKMI Schools Organisation, Pagoulatou-Vlachou SA involved the possibility of a franchise by UWS to ACW of three forms of programmes of study:

'(i) foundation year programmes;

(ii) the 2 + 2 scheme in electrical and electronic engineering;

(iii) certain specified subjects being taught in their entirety at ACW'.

The availability of honours courses under (iii) above (ie Level 2 and beyond) would be subject to the approval of the Academic Board of the University of Wales through its Validation Board.

13 A special meeting of the Deans' Academic Committee (DAC) of UWS was held on 20 May 1994 to consider a proposal from ACW for the franchise of the programmes described above. The DAC noted that UWS had not, at that time, franchised the teaching of the whole of any of its degree schemes to another institution, and it was unclear at that stage what role, if any, the Validation Board of the federal University would take in a franchising arrangement. The DAC authorised a member of staff to visit the consortium in Athens and noted that any agreement entered into would need to provide UWS with power of approval over the teaching staff employed on the degree schemes. In June 1994 the DAC received the report from the visit and following discussion, agreed in principle to pursue the concept of 'whole course franchising' and resolved that the proposal for initial validation of ACW to operate a number of UWS programmes be approved.

14 The franchise agreement between UWS (University College, Swansea as it then was) and ACW, dated 6 October 1994, was for a period of three academic years, commencing October 1994. Schedules set out the programmes of study at both foundation and degree level that are covered by the agreement and include four honours awards in addition to the originally planned programme in electrical and electronic engineering. Eight foundation programmes are also covered by this agreement.

15 In March 1995, a team of staff from UWS visited Athens to assess the academic infrastructure of ACW. On the basis of its report, the VU recommended that a full franchise be granted to ACW subject to the satisfactory implementation of a number of conditions. Throughout 1995, a series of further visits to ACW by members of UWS took place to assess the suitability of ACW as a franchisee for a range of UWS programmes on an incremental basis.

16 Senate and Council of UWS were informed of, and gave their consent to, the franchising arrangements at ACW through receipt of the minutes of the DAC and all relevant papers. In the papers provided by UWS the audit team could find no evidence that consideration by the Senate and Council had included the underlying principles and rationale of outreach or franchising, or their potential implications. Whilst the VU is charged with oversight of such arrangements, the team noted that, in practice, responsibility for synchronising the delivery of courses and programmes of study in Swansea and Athens rested with the member of UWS teaching staff identified to carry out that role by her or his department. It is this person who provides the franchisee with the relevant course outline, reading lists and examination papers.

17 The formal arrangements established by UWS to govern each of the programmes it operates in partnership with ACW are described by UWS as franchises. The arrangements made by UWS with ACW are distinctive in that the quality control and quality assurance arrangements for each of the programmes offered in Athens use some departmentally-and faculty-based procedures, as described above, but also rely on the active intervention of VU staff to respond to requests for advice and support from the staff of ACW. The admirable speed with which the VU is able to respond to such requests ensures that matters raised by ACW are generally rapidly addressed by UWS. However, it seemed to the audit team that the very effectiveness of such approaches to the VU might leave ACW, and departments at UWS, in some doubt as to whether the locus of both authority and responsibility for the quality assurance of their collaborative provision lay with departments and the relevant faculties, or with the VU at UWS (see below, paragraphs 19 and 28). The team suggests that UWS may wish to consider reviewing its policies for the quality assurance of collaborative provision, in order to clarify the formal responsibilities of its departments and University-wide committees for the benefit of all those in Swansea and Athens supporting provision at ACW.

MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS FOR COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES

18 The formal agreement between UWS and ACW requires a specialist panel of assessors to monitor the operation and development of courses and programmes of study franchised by UWS to ACW and the progress of students; that UWS participates in staff recruitment to ACW and that no changes be made to the franchised courses without the written approval of UWS. The agreement gives UWS absolute discretion to regulate the contents of all promotional materials. The agreement does not mention any specific administrative arrangements to be set up at ACW to support the collaboration, or arrangements for formal communication and reporting between the partners. As noted above, responses from UWS to enquiries from ACW were rapid and, the team was told, invariably helpful. However, the part played by UWS in its communications with ACW appeared essentially reactive. The audit team found a number of areas in which UWS had not yet established clear means of gathering information about the operation of the franchises and of reporting its findings to the Teaching Committee and the Senate. UWS will wish to reflect on these matters and to formulate measures to enable its officers and committees to adopt a more active stance in monitoring and administering the partnership.

Role of subject-based staff

19 UWS 'subject-based' staff have a key monitoring role in the quality control and quality assurance of the franchise (see above, paragraph 17). They are members of the teaching staff identified by their department to be the point of contact between a course or programme of studies in UWS and its equivalent in ACW. They are expected to visit ACW on a regular basis.

20 The audit team noted that reports by teams of 'subject-based' UWS staff who had visited Athens had been received and considered by the VU prior to the approval of specific franchise arrangements, and that, in recommending approval of franchise arrangements, the VU had frequently set recommendations and conditions. The team saw evidence that the VU had taken steps to satisfy itself that conditions and recommendations had been met by ACW. Where critical comments had been made in the reports of the visits of 'subject-based' staff to ACW, however, the team found little evidence that the VU had responded to all such comments, or indicated their nature or existence to Senate. UWS informed the team that all comments by subject-based staff were carefully considered by the VU, but that recommendations considered untimely or inappropriate were not taken forward. UWS may wish to take steps to ensure that such comments from staff visiting a partner are recorded, together with the recommendation of the VU, in reports from the Unit to Senate.

21 Reviewing the work of individual subject specialists, the audit team found little evidence that they were operating in any sense as members of the panel of subject specialists described in the formal agreement between UWS and ACW. Nor did it appear to the team that the procedures that would have been used to monitor the operation of their counterparts at Swansea were being used systematically to monitor the courses and programmes of study franchised to ACW. The team noted that the formal agreement did not require the co-ordinators of the courses to provide periodic written reports or provide for a regular overall report on the activities of ACW to be sent to UWS.

22 At the time of the audit, student evaluation of courses was being established, mainly by means of questionnaires. However, as yet there was no mechanism by which the outcomes of these evaluations could reach the boards of study from which the franchised programme originated, or for feedback to be given to students in Athens about issues they had raised. The audit team heard from members of ACW that a personal tutor system had recently been introduced to provide academic advice and support to students. This evident example of good practice had not been mentioned in the briefing papers provided by UWS. Such information and the gathering of other examples of good practice would doubtless be of interest and benefit to other partner institutions.

ACW Academic Committee

23 The audit team noted that ACW had recently established an Academic Committee, and was told that this innovation had arisen from a discussion between a Pro Vice-Chancellor of UWS and the Head of the VU during a visit to Athens in February 1996. Arrangements had also been made by UWS for the minutes of the Academic Committee to be received at Swansea, for papers from relevant UWS committees to be sent to ACW, and additional ways of integrating the committee structure of ACW with that of UWS were under active consideration. As its relationship with ACW develops, UWS may wish to review its arrangements for gathering and considering information from its partner and, in the light of this, how it might assist ACW to clarify the role and remit of the Academic Committee.

Monitoring promotional materials

24 In considering how UWS, through the VU, checked the textual accuracy of publicity materials produced by ACW, the audit team was provided with copies of an exchange of correspondence between the Director of Studies at Athens and the Registrar of UWS. This revealed that parts of the draft which had been deleted or modified by Swansea had been retained in the brochure published in Greek. In one case this involved more than a doubling of the numbers of areas of study that the foundation courses were described as leading to. The discrepancies had not been detected by UWS. In addition, two potentially misleading statements in the draft, one relating to the accreditation of a programme of study by a professional body, the other concerning responsibility for delivering a taught post-graduate programme, had not been corrected by the UWS scrutineer, and had appeared in the final versions. The University will wish to review the means by which it assures itself of the complete accuracy of the publicity materials issued to promote its academic provision in Greece.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

25 The formal agreement between UWS and ACW states that both the contents of assessments and the procedures for the administration of assessment activities are the same as those at UWS.

Methods of assessment

26 In accordance with the terms of the formal agreement between ACW and UWS assessment procedures follow those of the relevant UWS departments. Sessional examinations, which decide students' progression to the next stage of a degree scheme, are held in ACW as in UWS and examination scripts of ACW students are moderated in accordance with departmental prescriptions.

Conduct of examinations

27 The audit team found plentiful evidence that assessment arrangements for UWS programmes of study at ACW were operated fairly and efficiently. Examinations are set by members of UWS departments, who consult with ACW staff on the content of draft papers. Papers are delivered to ACW by courier and by UWS members of staff, and kept securely until they are distributed in the examination room. UWS instructions for the invigilation of examinations are issued to all ACW staff, and examinations are invigilated by a visiting senior member of UWS, acting as Superintendent of Examinations. ACW staff act as first markers of scripts, which are then sent to Swansea for second marking.

Examination boards

28 Examination arrangements for UWS students at Swansea and at ACW are intended to be identical, and pass lists for UWS students at Swansea and ACW are expected to be approved at departmental or faculty examination boards. The sample of pass lists for ACW students which the audit team saw suggested that approval had taken place solely through the VU, although the University indicated that in this, the sample was untypical of usual practice. The team noted that the formal agreement between UWS and ACW provides for the VU to approve pass lists. Such an arrangement, if followed in more than the few cases seen by the team, may remove a helpful opportunity for UWS to monitor the operation of the franchise at ACW, by ensuring the comparability of standards between programmes of study and courses offered at UWS and ACW (see above, paragraph 17). UWS may wish to satisfy itself that its arrangements for considering assessments from students in Swansea and Athens following the same courses and programmes of study at the same examination board are working satisfactorily.

29 Staff at ACW did not appear to receive minutes of relevant departmental or faculty examination boards at UWS. From the audit team's discussions with ACW staff, it seemed that they might not have received sufficient briefing on assessment arrangements for courses and programmes of study offered at ACW and how they meshed with the overall assessment framework of UWS. The team noted with interest that UWS had recently made arrangements for a member of ACW to attend a UWS examination board in Swansea.

Information for students on UWS assessment procedures

30 At the time of the audit, course handbooks, which included information about methods of assessment, had been available to students 'for about a month' but in conversation with students the audit team noted that they were aware of assessment procedures, including the balance between course work and examination but were in general unaware of its UWS appeal procedures. Postgraduate students told the team that they assumed that a document describing a UWS appeals procedure must exist, but had not been shown it. UWS will doubtless wish to provide students at ACW with information on its appeal procedures.

STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Approval of teaching staff

31 The agreement between UWS and ACW requires UWS to satisfy itself that academic staff appointed at ACW are appropriately qualified, a responsibility it discharges through its 'subject-based' staff. In advance of the appointment of a member of teaching staff at ACW, UWS staff inform ACW of the criteria to be met and ACW submits details of the qualifications and experience of the proposed members of teaching staff to UWS. Changes in teaching staff may only be made with the approval of UWS. When 'subject-based' staff from UWS visit ACW they are to be 'informed of any deficiencies or difficulties in the delivery of teaching'.

32 The audit team met a number of academic staff at ACW, the majority of whom were part-time employees of ACW. In general they had been recruited after submitting a curriculum vitae for approval by UWS and on the basis of an interview in Athens, often conducted by one interviewer. Whilst it was clear that considerable effort had been made by ACW to appoint well-qualified and competent staff, the audit team took the view that by devolving responsibility for recruitment to departmental level at UWS, the agreement between UWS and ACW allowed for the possibility of considerable variation of practice. Shortly before the audit visit, the franchising of a UWS honours degree programme had been approved by the University of Wales after a small University of Wales team had visited ACW. The team noted with interest that interviews for ACW staff to support this development had been conducted by three senior and appropriate members of UWS who had travelled to Athens.

Staff development

33 All the ACW teaching staff whom the audit team met were graduates of UK universities, and in some cases of UWS itself, and were therefore familiar with British styles of teaching and methods of assessment. At the same time, students and staff, including a visiting member of UWS staff, emphasised the inherent difficulties of delivering a British university syllabus at a considerable distance, and the very different educational backgrounds and expectations of Greek students.

34 The audit team was told of a number of interesting personal and departmental initiatives, such as adapting teaching materials to the Greek context, proposals to run teaching methods seminars at ACW, and strong encouragement to one member of ACW staff to register for a UWS higher degree. The development needs of ACW staff were under review by UWS at the time of the visit and the team subsequently learnt that a visit by the UWS Staff Development Officer to ACW was to take place in the next session.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

35 At the time of the audit visit ACW was undergoing rapid change and development. The audit team noted with pleasure the evident commitment and enthusiasm of the ACW Director of Studies and her team. Students who met the team were positive about the programmes of study they were following.

36 Routine administrative and academic communications between ACW and UWS appeared to the audit team to be effectively conducted, with the VU, its Chairman and particularly its administrative Head providing advice and support to ACW on request. The detailed attention paid by the VU to the development of the partnership between UWS and ACW provides UWS with a sound basis for assuring the quality and standards of its franchised provision in Greece.

37 The audit team also found plentiful evidence of interaction between the academic staff and individual departments at UWS. Such interaction provided a number of examples of good practice, including the introduction of class student representatives by ACW, and its establishment of an Academic Committee. As its relationship with ACW continues to mature, University of Wales Swansea will be well placed to draw on its experience of this collaboration to review its policy framework for the quality assurance of its collaborative provision overall, and to continue to lead the development of its partnership.

Appendix 1

The courses offered at AC Wales (Athens) at the time of the audit team's visit were:

(I) Foundation year courses in the following subjects

English
Mathematics
Economics
Physics
Chemistry
Mechanics and Computing
Politics
Sociology
Quantitative Studies

(ii) Level one courses in the following subjects

English
Italian
Psychology
Economics
Statistics

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.

HEQC Overseas Partnership Audit 1996 Commentary on Draft Report on Visit to Athens Campus Wales

The University of Wales Swansea (UWS) and Athens Campus Wales (ACW) welcomed the request for an HEQC visit to ACW similarly welcome this detailed and comprehensive report. We note the general positive and constructive nature of the report and its conclusions and feel that the thrust of advice is concerned with the fine-tuning of procedures rather than with the academic content of courses and their quality. We have made the point to the audit team that this visit came at an early stage of our evolving relationship with ACW and its recommendations give us the opportunity to re-assess our procedures in several areas.

We accept entirely the comments which recur at several points in the text to the fact that procedures and practices at ACW should more closely mirror what happens in the same circumstances at UWS. The Deans' Academic Committee had already recognized one such area during the 1995/96 academic session and it was then agreed that examination marks from ACW should be considered by the relevant Faculty before they were reported to the Validation Unit (para. 28). Discussions about the implementation of this proposal have recently taken place in UWS and a recommendation is to be made to the next meeting of the Deans' Academic Committee. With reference to para. 16, the scheme was presented to Senate and Council in 1994 but we recognize the need for a new and fuller discussion of both the principles and practices of franchising and this will occur in the 1996/97 session.

Whilst we do not entirely accept the thrust of para. 18, we shall pay more attention to the balance between the pro-active and the re-active in our relationship with ACW. Similarly (para. 20), we can arrange for all comments of subject-based staff to be included for Senate scrutiny, though we do not believe this is really necessary. We have made the point many times that the Validation Unit is not an autonomous body but an integral part of the committee structure with clear channels of communications: the HEQC team seem not convinced about this and we will review the lines of responsibility. Production of promotional material at ACW has been, and to some extent still is, a concern to us and these comments from HEQC will be helpful in our attempts to impose greater discipline in this area.

In summary, we accept this report and will follow its advice carefully. We have confidence in our partners in ACW and believe strongly that our standards of practice, our academic quality and our products in terms of qualified students, will achieve the right levels of excellence.

Professor David T Herbert

Pro Vice-Chancellor

26th November 1996