1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a UK organisation which aims to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and the funders of higher education. One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and some of their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2001, QAA audited selected collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Greece. The purpose of the audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and quality of education in their partnerships with institutions in Greece.
The process of audit of overseas collaborative arrangements
2 In planning these audits of overseas collaborative provision, QAA invited all UK institutions to provide a list of their collaborative links with Greek partners. On the basis of the information provided on the range and scale of the links, it selected four UK institutions for audit. Each of the selected institutions provided for QAA a Commentary describing the way the link operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. Each institution was asked, as part of its Commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity. It was also invited to make reference to the ways in which its arrangements adhered to QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999) (QAA's Code). QAA's Code contains precepts and guidance about the assurance of quality and standards in collaborative activity. In the context of these audits, it was used as a reference point by the audit team, and its contents are reflected in the observations in this report. Some institutions also made reference, in their commentaries, to the former Higher Education Quality Council's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education (1996) (HEQC's Code), which has now been replaced by QAA's Code. In addition to these documents, the team made use of other information in the public domain, including previous HEQC and QAA audit reports on the UK institutions and the information made available on the web sites of their Greek partners.
3 The four UK institutions selected for audit were visited by members of the audit team to discuss the arrangements they had made for assuring quality and standards in their links with the Greek partner institutions. During the visit, each institution made available to the team the evidence it used to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of its arrangements. The team then visited the Greek institutions to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institution's Commentary and from the UK visit. During each of the visits in Greece, further documentation about the link was made available to the team, and discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. QAA is grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Greece for the willing cooperation provided to the team.
The context of collaborative provision with Greek partners
4 Under the Greek constitution, higher education is the exclusive responsibility of the state and may be provided only by state institutions. However, legislation permits private companies offering post-school education to exist as 'Laboratories of Liberal Studies' (LLS), registered with the Ministry of Commerce. LLS offer a wide range of academic programmes, primarily in response to market needs. As businesses, they are free to establish links with higher education providers overseas. Their programmes are not recognised officially by the Greek state, however, and qualifications awarded by overseas institutions on the basis of a programme of study (or any part of a programme) at an LLS are not recognised in Greece for the purposes of public sector employment.
The background to the collaborative arrangement
5 This report considers the arrangement between Kingston University (the University) and ICBS Thessaloniki Business School (ICBS) for the delivery by ICBS of a range of programmes leading to awards of the University. The arrangement covers the franchise to ICBS of the University's part-time postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies (DMS) and MBA, delivered through a combination of weekend classes supported by open learning texts and materials. It also covers the validation by the University of four full-time ICBS undergraduate degree programmes: the BA/BA (Hons) Accounting and Finance; BA/BA (Hons) Business Administration; BA/BA (Hon) Marketing; and BSc/BSc (Hons) Business Computing. These programmes are of four years' duration with the first year forming a foundation or 'proving' year. For the BA awards, both the foundation year and the first level of the degree programmes are common. All students are enrolled at ICBS and registered with the University. Details of current student numbers are provided as appendix B to this report.
6 ICBS is a private business school established in 1977 in Thessaloniki. Originally conceived as an examination and assessment centre for UK institutions, it has expanded to offer a range of programmes in response to a perceived need for advanced training and education in the general area of business studies. Since 1997, ICBS has also operated a subsidiary centre in Athens. The postgraduate programmes offered in partnership with the University are delivered at both ICBS centres. All students registered for undergraduate studies are based in Thessaloniki. The University has given approval for two further expansions of the partnership: the delivery of the undergraduate provision in Athens, and the franchise of an MA in Business Management in Thessaloniki. Neither development had been implemented at the time of the audit visit. In 2001 ICBS was accredited and recognised by the British Accreditation Council for Independent Further and Higher Education as an institution providing higher education.
7 The language of delivery and assessment for the undergraduate programmes is Greek, although there is a compulsory (but non-credit-rated) English language component and a requirement that students achieve a specified standard of English prior to graduation. Although franchised, the language of the postgraduate programmes is also Greek, but there is a policy to encourage the use of English teaching materials. In general terms, the partnership is conducted in a combination of English and Greek, facilitated by several Greek speakers at the University and the many good English speakers at ICBS.
8 While all of its degree programmes are offered through the partnership with the University, ICBS also delivers a range of two-year diploma courses in collaboration with another, private UK institution. Students who achieve the award of a diploma may be permitted to transfer into year three of a four-year University-validated programme (ie generally equivalent to entry to the second year of a typical UK-based three-year honours degree). Although there appears to be substantial overlap between the curricula of the diploma programmes and the early stages of the degree programmes - and the programmes have been marketed in tandem by ICBS - the University takes no responsibility for the diplomas and believes that recruitment to the diploma programmes is likely to cease in the near future.
9 The audit team members who conducted the UK visit to Kingston University were Mr D C Attwood (audit secretary), Ms S J Clark, Dr P A J Easy and Ms D J Lockton. The members of the team who visited ICBS (Thessaloniki centre) were Mr D C Attwood, Ms S J Clark, Dr P A J Easy, Ms D J Lockton and Mr R P Williams. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Ms S J Clark, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision
10 In describing the rationale for establishing overseas partnerships, the Commentary prepared by the University for the purposes of the audit emphasised the 'overall strategic objective of internationalising the University' and, in particular, the perception that international collaboration was essential for the credibility of a university business school. The opportunity to earn additional revenue was also cited. In respect of the link with ICBS, the Commentary expressed the University's wish to assist its Greek partners in achieving their 'legitimate ambitions as providers of higher education to serve their country's needs'.
11 Within the University, overall authority for collaborative provision rests with Academic Board, which delegates its responsibilities in this area to the Academic Standards and Quality Group (ASQG), chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. ASQG's operational arm is the Academic Standards and Awards Section, part of the Academic Registry, which maintains and implements agreed procedures and regulations. An important role is also played by the Director of Academic Development, who is responsible for fostering new initiatives. In practice, however, much responsibility for the management of the partnership with ICBS is devolved to subject level, with the University's Business School (KBS) undertaking the central role in working with ICBS on quality and standards matters. Within KBS, key roles are played by the Dean, the Associate Dean who chairs the Faculty Quality Assurance Committee (FQAC) and is also the Director of Quality Assurance and Overseas Programmes, and an Academic Liaison Coordinator (ALC) with specific responsibilities in relation to ICBS.
12 The University's Quality Assurance Handbook (the Handbook) sets out the general principles which govern its approach to collaborative partnerships. These emphasise the University's acceptance of responsibility for the academic standards of all validated or franchised awards and its concern for comparability, including the principle that 'the student experience is as similar as possible' whether students are studying at the University or at a partner institution. The Handbook contains sections covering organisational and operational arrangements in respect of collaborative work with partners outside the UK. It does not include, however, specific guidance about the management of collaborative programmes taught in a language other than English. The audit team noted that brief regulations governing such programmes were approved in 1995 and required the approval, at validation, of 'specific arrangements...to ensure that the academic standards of the programme can be maintained'. Although the team was informed that the regulations were no longer in use, it was evident that such arrangements, consistent with QAA's Code, had been established in respect of the ICBS link (see below, paragraphs 22-23 and 42). The University may wish, nonetheless, to consider the merits of a more explicit statement of its minimum quality assurance requirements for such programmes, in the light of what QAA's Code describes as the 'reasonable expectation that the holder of an award from a UK institution will have been taught and assessed in the English language'.
13 The Commentary made no direct reference to the extent to which the University considered its management of the link with ICBS to be representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity. The audit team was informed that the University did not consider the link to be representative, owing chiefly to the language of tuition; the combination of validated and franchised programmes; the size and scale of the operation (which, as the Commentary indicated, is almost one third of the size of KBS itself); and the fact that ICBS is a private sector organisation.
14 The Academic Standards and Awards Section has required all faculties of the University to undertake an analysis of the extent to which their management of specific partnerships adheres to the precepts of QAA's Code. KBS's subsequent analysis of the ICBS partnership has resulted in a declaration that the arrangements adhere to QAA's Code.
The establishment and management of the link
The approval process
15 The Commentary outlined the development of the partnership. Negotiations were initiated by ICBS which approached the University in 1995 seeking a franchise of the DMS and MBA. At this time, ICBS offered undergraduate awards of another UK university, which was in the process of withdrawing from its collaborative relationships overseas. With this withdrawal impending, ICBS asked Kingston to take over the validation of its undergraduate provision. The audit team was informed that the presence of several native Greek speakers in KBS was a significant factor in establishing confidence, within the University, in the potential of the proposed link; in this sense, the establishment of the partnership was not typical of the University's common practice and pre-dated the more formal processes for institutional approval which it has now put into place. These processes, detailed in the Handbook, involve final approval by Academic Board on receipt of advice from the University's Academic Directorate. The advice is based on a detailed scrutiny of both the academic standing and financial stability of the prospective partner, the acquisition of external references, and a visit by senior staff of the University.
16 The University undertook a series of validation and approval events in the period between 1995 and 2000. In the first instance, these were directed at approving the franchise of the postgraduate programmes, and effecting the transfer of the undergraduate programmes previously authorised by the original UK partner of ICBS. At the same time, a new BSc/BSc (Hons) in Business Computing was validated. Subsequently, the undergraduate programmes were revalidated to bring them into line with the University's modular structures and its general academic regulations.
17 It was clear from the papers and reports generated by these events that the validation and approval processes were well-documented and included a strong external presence. Careful attention had been paid to the advice offered in HEQC's Code. In terms of institutional approval, the arrangements had included a written agreement with the former UK partner of ICBS designed to protect the interests of students registered at the time of the transfer, broad consideration of issues affecting the recognition of UK awards by the Greek authorities, and formal approval by the University's Board of Governors. The evidence available suggested that the University's approval procedures were sound, and had been implemented with commendable thoroughness and care.
Formal arrangements
18 The partnership is governed by a formal general Agreement, signed in 1997, to which separate Memoranda of Cooperation are appended for the undergraduate and postgraduate provision. Each Memorandum has an Addendum setting out financial arrangements. The Agreement describes the general obligations of each partner, and covers other matters such as the period of the agreement and termination arrangements. The latter include a commitment to students in the event of a premature ending of the partnership. The Memoranda address more detailed operational and academic matters and assign 'overall academic control' to Academic Board. In the view of the audit team, the agreements are comprehensive in scope and substance and adhere in full to QAA's Code.
19 In the light of the advice offered in both HEQC's Code and QAA's Code, since 1998 the University's policy on certification has been to include the name of the partner institution and the language of tuition (where this is not English) on its degree certificates. However, in 2000 exemptions to this policy were made for ICBS, first in respect of the location of study and then the language of tuition. The audit team noted that the representations made by ICBS, and accepted by Academic Board, were based largely on apparent employment disadvantages to students and a market handicap for ICBS in a local environment where award certificates issued through similar collaborative partnerships did not include a full declaration of these details. In arriving at its decision, Academic Board was clear that such waiving of its standard practice applied only to ICBS and did not set a precedent for other partners. The award certificates issued to ICBS students thus declare the existence of an accompanying transcript which contains the name of partner and the language of study. While this practice adheres to the relevant precept of QAA's Code, it appeared to the team that a measure of inconsistency in the treatment of collaborative partners had been introduced. The University may wish to consider the rationale for its exemption of ICBS-based awards and whether this is based on appropriate grounds.
20 In addition to the official transcript issued by the University, the audit team was told that ICBS issued informal transcripts to students. The team saw examples of such transcripts, which had been issued at the end of the seventh semester to students applying for postgraduate study. They carried the title 'Official Transcript of Grades' and were prefaced by a letter from the Registrar of ICBS 'issued to accompany the provisional/official transcript of grades'. It was clear that these transcripts had been produced with care, recorded accurate information about the language of tuition, and indicated that final year results were awaited. The University will be aware, however, that QAA's Code suggests that the issuing of transcripts should remain under the control of the awarding institution. It may wish to consider whether the existence of two 'official' transcripts has the potential to confuse students and other stakeholders.
21 The Agreement requires ICBS to seek written consent for use of the University's name in publicity materials; the Memoranda state that responsibility for the prior approval of such materials rests with the Dean of KBS, although the audit team heard that, in practice, more immediate advice was often given by ALC. The University expressed confidence in the robustness of these arrangements. However, the team noted an example of publicity which had the potential to mislead: the English language section of ICBS's prospectus for undergraduate programmes carried the University's logo on the pages which described those diploma courses validated by ICBS's other current UK partner (see above, paragraph 8), an error repeated on ICBS's web site. The undergraduate prospectus (although not the web site) had been corrected by the time of the team's visit to ICBS. The University will wish to take action to ensure that the mechanisms by which it monitors both paper and electronic promotional materials are secure, a matter raised for its attention in HEQC's 1997 quality audit report on its collaborative provision. In so doing, it may also wish to consider further its decision to permit ICBS to advertise the MBA programme as having specialist 'pathways', a practice not used by the University. In the view of the team, the publicity resulting from this decision did not discourage applicants from assuming that the programme resulted in the award of a specialist MBA.
Quality of learning opportunities and student support
Liaison and administration
22 Liaison arrangements are specified in the Memoranda and include, in respect of the undergraduate programmes, the appointment by the University of a team of 'at least three full-time, bilingual staff' to 'assume responsibility for quality assurance arrangements'. In practice, the primary link between the partners is the ALC (described in the Memoranda as the Academic Network Coordinator), a native Greek speaker. The ALC's role is set out in the definitive course document for the undergraduate programmes and is wide-ranging: it comprises a combination of developmental and quality assurance responsibilities, together with involvement in assuring academic standards, particularly in respect of assessment processes where assistance is offered both in the setting and moderation of assignments and examinations. The Commentary reported that the ALC's responsibilities had been considerably enhanced recently as a result of the discovery, in the summer of 2000, of some assessment practices at ICBS which were unacceptable to the University (see below, paragraph 38).
23 In the earlier stages of the development of the ICBS centre in Athens, the University employed a part-time native Greek speaker to act as a 'conduit to KBS from the Athens students'. This was conceived as essentially a developmental role rather than as a quality assurance mechanism, with the member of staff both offering advice and undertaking teaching duties. The role was discontinued in 2000 when ICBS appointed a full-time Academic Director for the Athens centre.
24 While the University's procedures ensure that there is a regular exchange of appropriate documentation on academic matters (see below, paragraphs 28, 30 and 42), other than the ALC there is no continuing, formal liaison between ICBS and the University at the level of academic staff. The Memoranda assign significant responsibility for oversight of the partnership to the Dean, and the Associate Dean chairs ICBS undergraduate examination boards, but neither is responsible for liaison with ICBS on routine academic matters: indeed, the audit team was informed that multiple duties of the Associate Dean in relation to overseas programmes (see above, paragraph 11) created no conflicts of interest because the post carried no responsibilities for the actual management of the ICBS programmes. As the various approval and revalidation processes have taken place, University staff have been assigned to review and provide advice on curriculum content and assessment. This is not a continuing role, however, and has largely been absorbed into more informal contacts between staff. While such contacts have been frequent and have included visits to Kingston by ICBS staff, it appeared to the team that the University's continuing maintenance of quality and standards, for a partnership involving around 1,000 students and two centres, depended largely upon the work of one individual, who had been involved in the partnership since its inception. The team heard much evidence of the benefits that this close relationship had brought. Nonetheless, the University may wish to reflect on whether the recent difficulties it has experienced with the undergraduate programmes have their origin in its arrangements for liaison at subject level.
25 In accordance with the Memoranda, the committee system at ICBS has been devised to parallel the University's internal structures. Hence, each programme has a board of studies, a staff-student consultative committee, and module and programme boards of examiners. The remit and constitution of these committees, including their respective responsibilities for quality and standards, are set out in the Memoranda and the definitive course documents. The committee minutes seen by the audit team indicated that, while early meetings had not been well-attended, meetings held since summer 2000 had good attendance and had included detailed discussion, as appropriate, of student and programme matters and external examiners' reports.
26 At institutional level, the Memoranda require the establishment of a Steering Committee (now renamed the Executive Committee) to oversee the partnership. Its membership includes senior KBS staff and the ICBS management team. Its primary remit is to ensure the provision of 'appropriate resources' and 'keep under review the necessary academic and administrative support'. The audit team noted from the minutes of the Executive Committee that it appeared to be an effective mechanism for the discussion of operational and financial matters but, on occasion, had also discussed broader matters of quality and standards. As it was unclear how this committee was positioned in terms of the main deliberative structures of the University (other than the suggestion in the Commentary that it might act as a safety net if all other structures failed), the team queried the potential for confusion or overlap in the discussion and treatment of academic matters. In stressing that the prime responsibility for academic matters rested with KBS, the University's view was that academic and resource matters could not always be disentangled.
27 Administrative links between the partners are managed through the International Office of KBS which works closely with the ICBS course administrators and Registrar. A team of administrators from KBS visits Thessaloniki to undertake the annual enrolment of undergraduate students; the audit team was informed that the ICBS Registrar had also visited Kingston to become familiar with the University's procedures. The documentary evidence available to the team indicated that the University had communicated its administrative requirements very effectively, and that the administration of the programmes had been undertaken with commendable efficiency.
Monitoring and review
28 Collaborative partners are subject to the same regime for monitoring and review as the University's internal provision. Hence, ICBS is required to produce annual 'logs' for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The logs contain substantial statistical information and, through a standard template, cover the main areas of management and resources, curriculum structure and delivery, comments on the previous year's action plan, and an action plan for the following year. The logs are submitted to FQAC, which compiles a summary report for ASQG. The report is intended to highlight matters beyond the remit of FQAC, together with any other issues or developments of particular note. The audit team had access to ICBS logs from the inception of the partnership in 1997. It was clear that they complied with the University's template and contained an appropriate level of detail; they included, in particular, a thorough record of the discussion of external examiners' reports. However, the FQAC minutes and subsequent report to ASQG appeared to the team to be lacking in their engagement with the matters revealed by the ICBS logs. In this sense, and in a pattern which might be seen as repeated elsewhere (see below, paragraphs 39-40), executive action in response to matters arising in the partnership appeared to be carried out with more alacrity than that offered by the deliberative structures of KBS and the University.
29 In terms of periodic monitoring, the Handbook sets out the procedures for the review and renegotiation of partnerships at the point at which the appropriate formal agreement is due for renewal. This process mirrors closely the University's practice in respect of the initial approval of a partnership (see above, paragraph 15). At the time of the audit, no institutional review had been scheduled for ICBS because the current Agreement does not expire until October 2002.
30 As a general contribution to monitoring and review, student feedback is elicited through the staff-student consultative committees. Where possible, these committees are attended by the ALC and matters arising are discussed at the boards of studies. Copies of the minutes are forwarded to the University. The students who met the audit team confirmed that they found the committees to be effective fora through which to raise and resolve student matters.
Staffing and staff development
31 In accordance with QAA's Code, the University has always reserved the right to scrutinise the qualifications and experience of staff appointed by ICBS to deliver the programmes leading to its awards; more recently, it has decided that it should be represented on the interviewing panel for all new appointments. In Thessaloniki, ICBS employs a mixture of full-time and part-time staff. The staffing establishment is more limited at the Athens centre, reflecting the nature of the delivery of the DMS and MBA: it comprises two full-time staff, supported by a range of part-time lecturers. The audit team noted that there had been a recent growth in the popularity of the postgraduate programmes in Athens, to the point where student numbers now exceeded those for the same programmes in Thessaloniki. The University will clearly wish to continue its monitoring of the adequacy of staffing in Athens in the light of this expansion.
32 The Commentary claimed that KBS had made a significant investment in staff development at ICBS over the period of the partnership. The audit team was able to confirm this claim, noting in particular the valuable individual contribution made by the ALC and the provision of formal staff development sessions by the University's Learning and Teaching Development Unit. Between September 1998 and June 2000, for example, six sessions had been offered on assessment and related matters, although there had been some concern that sessions were not always well-attended. The University's general commitment to staff development in partner institutions was a matter for commendation in HEQC's 1997 report (see above, paragraph 21); it remains worthy of commendation in relation to the partnership with ICBS. The University will no doubt be continuing its efforts to ensure that the appropriate academic staff attend and benefit from the sessions provided.
Provision of information to students
33 The Commentary provided no information about the University's policies relating to the provision of information for students studying at ICBS. The audit team learnt that all students received a student handbook, produced by ICBS but based on the University's own student handbooks, contextualised for local conditions. The handbooks seen by the team provided clear guidance in relation to a range of matters, including progression, student services, and academic misconduct. They did not, however, give details of procedures for student complaints or appeals. The students who met the team were confident that they could take any matters of concern to ICBS staff but were uncertain about their rights in relation to the University. In the light of QAA's Code, the University will wish to ensure that students at ICBS have access to information about the appropriate channels for complaints and appeals, and about their entitlements as registered students of the University.
Assurance of the standards of awards
Admissions
34 The Commentary did not discuss admissions for either the undergraduate or postgraduate programmes. The Memoranda are clear that entry requirements are to be specified in the definitive course documents and that the admissions process will be undertaken by ICBS staff in accordance with those requirements. The entry requirements for the DMS and MBA, as franchised programmes, are identical to those for the University's internal provision. For the undergraduate programmes, students are required to achieve a passing grade in the Apolyterion and to sit an English language diagnostic test. The Commentary reported that, in the light of these entry requirements, the University's view was that programmes of four rather than three years in length would 'provide a better basis for the maintenance of academic standards equivalent to those pertaining in the UK'. Once admitted, students follow a compulsory English language programme during their time at ICBS, and must achieve a satisfactory grade before their degrees can be awarded.
35 QAA's Code requires an awarding institution to both set and monitor the application of admissions requirements. In respect of undergraduate programmes, offers to students are made by ICBS and the monitoring takes place through the annual visit of KBS administrators (see above, paragraph 27). For the DMS and MBA, a review of the intake is undertaken annually by the University's programme leaders. Entry with advanced standing is also available for the undergraduate programmes following scrutiny of a student's prior learning and achievement (APL), and in accordance with an agreed rubric: the maximum exemption is for two of the four years. The scrutiny is undertaken by the ICBS Registrar who consults appropriate staff at the University in the event of any doubtful cases. Although it was clear that the University had considerable confidence in this procedure, the audit team was told that there was no direct monitoring of the quality of the APL decision-making process. The University may wish to consider including such periodic verification in its general arrangements for the assurance of the quality of the admissions procedure.
The assessment of students
36 The Memoranda state that, while the 'oversight and maintenance of academic standards' is the responsibility of the University, 'assessment and examination arrangements' will generally 'be the responsibility of ICBS' in line with the University's standard requirements. Those requirements are outlined in the Memoranda. For the franchised DMS and MBA programmes, all assessment is set by KBS staff and is identical, other than its translation into Greek, for all candidates irrespective of their location of study. The assessment regulations are also identical. Boards of examiners are held in Greece but chaired by a senior member of KBS; in constitutional terms, such boards are subcommittees of the main boards of examiners at the University, and one of the external examiners for the ICBS provision also attends and reports to the relevant parent board. The arrangements differ for the validated undergraduate programmes. Assessments are set by ICBS staff: examination papers are subject to the approval of the appropriate external examiners but, until recently, were not formally reviewed by the University. In general, the programmes operate under the University's standard Undergraduate Modular Scheme Regulations although some local variations have been approved, including additional progression and attendance requirements. Boards of examiners are held in Greece but are normally chaired by the Associate Dean.
37 In order to secure the integrity of assessment procedures for both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, invigilation of examinations is carried out by staff independent of ICBS who are employed on the recommendation of the British Council. In the case of the postgraduate programmes, examinations are timed to occur simultaneously with those held in the UK. The audit team had access to guidelines issued to the invigilators, which specified clearly the University's requirements.
38 The general issue of student assessment has not been unproblematic for the University in relation to the undergraduate programmes offered at ICBS, as acknowledged in the Commentary. The clearest example of the problems encountered relates to summer 2000, when some irregularities were discovered in the recording of student grades. Having identified practices which it judged unacceptable, the University responded quickly, and at the highest level, to resolve the immediate problems and to put into place additional safeguards to prevent any recurrence. The package of measures which has been agreed with ICBS includes the increased presence of the ALC in Greece, improvements in the preparation and recording of student grades, and generally enhanced procedures for moderation and double-marking. A monitoring group chaired by the Vice-Chancellor has been established as part of a one-year 'probationary' period during which ICBS has undertaken to implement these measures.
39 While the speed of reaction and the seriousness with which this incident was treated were commendable, there are, in the view of the audit team, several matters to which the University should give further consideration in its overall analysis of events. The University's action appears to have been undertaken for the most part through its executive officers, perhaps owing to the timing of the discovery in the summer of 2000. However, despite the Handbook's description of the ASQG as 'an independent auditor of the University's awards and taught academic provision and its quality assurance processes', this subcommittee of Academic Board appears to have had a limited role to play. It received an oral report on the incident in October 2000 (although a written report was available to the Board of Governors in September of that year), and simply noted subsequent action at its December meeting. The Chair of ASQG is not a member of the current monitoring group overseeing the implementation of the enhanced procedures for the partnership.
40 In addition, while the particular event which was the catalyst for action by the University related to the alteration of student grades, the audit team noted that a range of matters related to assessment had been a feature of undergraduate external examiners' reports - and of reports compiled by the University's own staff - well before the summer of 2000. External examiners had commented, for example, on weaknesses in the standards of examination papers, over-marking, the lack of peer moderation, and the University's marginal involvement in the assessment process for the undergraduate programmes. Further, the University had access to an HEQC audit report of 1995 on the previous UK university partner of ICBS, which had drawn attention to difficulties encountered by that University in relation to assessment in the partnership. Perhaps most surprisingly, the University had already experienced, in 1998, a case where marks had been altered following the meeting of a board of examiners (albeit in this instance in consultation with external examiners). While it was clear that the University had worked hard to improve the assessment processes inherited from ICBS's previous partner, and there was no evidence that the final outcomes had been inappropriate, it must be a matter of disappointment to the University that effective remedies for these matters had not been achieved at an earlier stage through its established deliberative and committee structures, but appeared to have needed the intervention of strong executive action.
41 The audit team was informed by senior members of the University that the probationary period for ICBS was being taken very seriously, and that the partnership would be dissolved if the new procedures were not observed. The team saw a range of reports from the ALC to the Steering Group, detailing the work undertaken in recent months, and it was clear from the team's visit to ICBS that the procedures were taking effect. This progress notwithstanding, the University's approval, in January 2001, of ICBS's request to admit an additional MBA cohort in the same month, appeared to the team to dilute the seriousness with which the 'probation' could be regarded. The team noted that ICBS had been informed of this approval in a letter from the Dean which, while specifying several conditions, made no mention of the probation.
External examiners
42 In accordance with QAA's Code and as specified in the Memoranda, the University retains responsibility for the appointment and functions of the external examiners for ICBS programmes. The external examiners appointed to date have been bilingual academics working in UK universities. Their responsibilities include the approval of examination papers, the scrutiny of coursework (particularly for the postgraduate programmes), the moderation of scripts, and attendance at ICBS for the week of the summer boards of examiners. The University informed the audit team that these arrangements provided a significantly enhanced external examiner system. External examiners' reports are considered by the boards of studies and responses to them are expected to inform the relevant 'log' submitted to FQAC. The reports are also analysed by the Director of Academic Development who produces a summary for faculty deans of matters which require particular attention. In both processes, therefore, KBS plays a central role in ensuring that matters raised in reports are considered thoroughly and that appropriate action is implemented.
43 For the most part, the external examiners' reports seen by the audit team were detailed, offering a range of advice to the University and ICBS. The team also saw evidence that these reports had been considered and analysed in detail, particularly in respect of the synopses compiled by the Director of Academic Development. However, despite this activity and the organisation of staff development events focusing on assessment (see above, paragraph 32), it was apparent that some matters had recurred on an annual basis with limited evidence of improvements resulting from corrective action (see above, paragraph 40). A recent report by the ALC also suggested that some ICBS staff perceived external examiners simply as a means of reducing marks, a view shared by the students who met the team. The University may wish to consider whether KBS should play a more active role in supporting ICBS in the implementation of agreed action resulting from external examiners' reports, and in embedding a greater understanding of the role of external examiners in establishing and maintaining academic standards.
Conclusions
44 Kingston University established its link with ICBS Thessaloniki Business School in 1995 and the period since that date has been characterised by a series of approval and revalidation events through which the University has sought to ensure that the franchised and validated provision delivered by ICBS meets its expectations in respect of quality and standards. The University has devoted considerable time and resources to the link and has managed it in accordance with clear and well-documented quality assurance procedures. Of particular note have been its commendably thorough validation and approval processes; the comprehensive formal written agreements on which the partnership is founded; its willingness to commit resources to ensure that quality assurance arrangements are sound; its strong commitment to staff development; the efficiency of administration; and the rapid and robust reaction, at the most senior level, to practices which it judged unacceptable. In broad terms, the University's management of the link adheres to the precepts in QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999).
45 As it seeks to improve further its management of the link, the University may wish to give consideration to several matters. These include making explicit its quality assurance requirements for programmes that are delivered and assessed in a language other than English; the rationale for its departure from its own standard practice in respect of award certificates for ICBS students; the adequacy of the mechanisms by which it monitors promotional materials; the provision of information to students on complaints and appeals; the monitoring of APL admissions; and whether its deliberative structures are operating effectively in analysing and responding to matters which arise through the monitoring and review of ICBS provision. Perhaps above all, and in the light of some of the difficulties it has experienced, it may wish to consider further whether its model of liaison at subject level, even in the enhanced form adopted during the academic year 2000-01, is sufficient to secure quality and standards in a link of this size and complexity.
46 The University does not consider its link with ICBS to be typical of its overseas collaborative work more generally. The Commentary produced for the purposes of the audit was frank in acknowledging that the link had created a number of challenges for the University, but was perhaps less comprehensive in its analysis of why some of the challenges had occurred. For the most part, however, difficulties have been addressed with a strong sense of goodwill and cooperation between the two partners, and the Commentary offers a positive prognosis for the link, while acknowledging that further progress and improvements are necessary. The findings of the audit confirm this analysis and support a conclusion of broad confidence in the University's stewardship of quality and standards in the link.
Appendix A*
Commentary on the overseas quality audit report supplied by Kingston University
1 The University welcomes the main conclusion of the report of 'broad confidence in the University's stewardship of quality and standards in the link' and the positive prognosis for the future. The University will consider carefully the detailed findings of the report as it continues to enhance and improve its collaborative arrangements. Initial reactions to the report are noted below.
2 The first draft report of audit was received on 13 July 2001. A final draft report was received on 14 September 2001 and the University submitted this annex, together with any comments it wished to make on the final draft by 8 October 2001. It should be noted therefore that the response to the report, and dealing with other matters relating to ICBS that the report refers to has covered the summer period and has been handled by the ICBS Monitoring Group. This Group has developed recommendations (see 3) for consideration by the Academic Standards and Quality Group and Academic Board. Only the Academic Standards Quality Group had met by 8 October and supported the various recommendations noted below. Final approval will be sought from Academic Board (paragraph 39 of the report relates to some of the difficulties of handling urgent matters over the summer period).
3 The recommendations for consideration by the Academic Standards and Quality Group and Academic Board were as follows:
i approval of an action plan drawn up in response to the audit report to be agreed by the University and ICBS. (This will be considered by Academic Board);
ii ending the probationary period imposed upon ICBS following difficulties discovered at the summer 2000 assessment boards. The basis of this recommendation was as follows:
- compliance by ICBS with conditions placed upon it during the academic year 2000-01;
- close monitoring of the assessment process in the summer of 2001;
- receipt of positive external examiners' reports (see also below).
However, the ending of the probationary period will not be unconditional in recognition that procedures cannot simply return to pre-summer 2000 arrangements and should also take account of the audit report. To this end two action plans are being developed as follows:
- firstly, dealing with detailed academic and procedural matters at the level of the University Business School's management of the link;
- secondly, a review of all liaison arrangements between the partners, actions required as a result of the audit report, future portfolio planning etc (meetings between senior executive staff of the partners will draw up the plan).
These recommendations have been endorsed by the Academic Standards and Quality Group and will be considered by Academic Board.
4 Since the audit took place, the University has received the external examiners' reports on the assessment process and outcomes for the 2000-01 academic year. The reports are positive and indicate that issues identified in the audit report were already on the way to being addressed. The external examiners' reports will inform the action plans noted in 2, particularly with respect to staff development to further enhance undergraduate and postgraduate projects/dissertations. The University is holding a major review of the postgraduate programmes, as part of its regular cycle of reviews.
*As supplied by Kingston University
Appendix B*
Students registered on programmes leading to Kingston University awards at ICBS
Table 1
Student numbers in the collaboration
| 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | |
| Undergraduate | 690 | 646 | 619 | 561 | 44 |
| DMS - Thess | 16 | 18 | 26 | 47 | 50 |
| MBA - Thess | 75 | 96 | 125 | 161 | 219 |
| DMS - Athens | 0 | 14 | 40 | 70 | 78 |
| MBA - Athens | 59 | 95 | 119 | 180 | 246 |
| Total | 840 | 869 | 929 | 1019 | 1,037 |
- The 1,037 total includes an intermediate cohort recruited in February 2001: 15 onto the MBA in both Athens and Thessaloniki and eight onto the DMS in Athens.
- The data above show quite clearly two trends: the shrinking of the UG market, due essentially to increased provision in the state sector; and the growth in the PG activity, especially the MBA in Athens.
Tables 2-4 below show outcomes by course up to the latest year for which complete data are available. As with the numbers in the intermediate years of the undergraduate courses, full data for outcomes in summer/autumn 2001 are not yet complete.
Table 2
DMS Results
| Entry cohort | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 |
| Number of students recruited | 16 | 16 | 32 | 66 |
| Withdrawn during year | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Fail at end year | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
| Pass for DMS | 15 | 12 | 26 | 52 |
| Pass with Distinction | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Table 3
MBA results
| Entry cohort | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 |
| Number recruited year 1 | 48 | 32 | 101 | 93 | 145 |
| Withdraw in year 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
| Fail at year end | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 11 |
| Pass and progress year 2/total including direct entry (Note 1) | 37/39 | 28/33 | 93/98 | 86/99 | 124/151 |
| Withdraw in year 2 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 8 | N/A |
| Fail at year end/D.O. (Note 2) | 4/17 | 1/13 | 2/19 | 0/40 | N/A |
| Pass MBA/D.O.s pass within 1 year | 18/17 | 15/8 | 63/16 | 47/n.a. | N/A |
| Pass with Distinction | 0 | 2 | 7 | 4 | N/A |
| Awarded DMS (at later stage) | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | N/A |
Note 1: Most direct entries to MBA2 are so called 'fast track' from the DMS. Note 2: D.O. indicates 'decision carried over to a later board'.
What tables 2 & 3 show is that the great majority of the students entering the postgraduate programme do indeed succeed in obtaining the award. This is an output measure of the effectiveness of the process, with the standards achieved confirmed by external examiners.
Table 4
Undergraduate degree classifications by course
| 1998 Results (July) | 1st | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3rd | Pass | Fail |
| Business admin | 2 | 19 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Accounting & fin | 8 | 13 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Marketing | 6 | 17 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1999 Results (July) | 1st | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3rd | Pass | Fail |
| Business admin | 1 | 21 | 24 | 9 | 0 | 5 |
| Accounting & fin | 1 | 31 | 22 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Marketing | 1 | 18 | 28 | 6 | 0 | 2 |
| 2000 Results (July) | 1st | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3rd | Pass | Fail |
| Business admin | 1 | 15 | 28 | 13 | 0 | 1 |
| Accounting & fin | 0 | 18 | 27 | 5 | 0 | 3 |
| Marketing | 0 | 15 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 6 |
These parts of table 4 are again for the latest complete year of data.
The partial (ie pre-resit) outcomes for 2001 showed a pattern similar to that for 2000 with very few first class degrees awarded, and with a small but measurable increase in the number of Pass degrees awarded.
*As supplied by Kingston University
Top