The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) is a body owned by the universities, colleges and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. It was established in 1992 to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the quality and standards of all higher educational provision for which these institutions are responsible, wherever and however this is offered to students. To this end, HEQC has undertaken regular academic quality audits of individual institutions to review the operation and effectiveness of arrangements for assuring quality and standards.
Quality audits also cover the arrangements which institutions use to assure the quality and standards of their awards and programmes offered in collaboration with other partners, both within and outside the UK. As part of this process, HEQC has extended its audit procedures enabling audit teams to visit overseas partners of UK institutions so that the same enquiries can be made of arrangements for safeguarding UK awards and programmes offered to students outside the UK as are made of UK-based provision. This initiative has been designed to help provide enhanced confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.
The audit enquiries were assisted by the publication in December 1996 of HEQC’s revised Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education. This offers guidance on good practice and a framework within which institutions can review and consider their current and future activities. The Code of Practice has been widely welcomed and has been used as a common point of reference for the programme of overseas visits. While UK institutions participating in the programme have not been ‘measured’against the Code, (which is not intended to be a definitive check list), their experience of using it, and the findings from the overseas visits in general, will contribute to its revision and further development.
The UK universities and colleges, with the agreement of their overseas partners, were voluntary participants in the programme of overseas visits. Their collaborative links cover between them a range of programmes and subjects, levels of award and different forms of institutional partnership, involving a mix of partners from small, privately funded organisations to large, publicly funded universities.
This report is one of a number of reports published from the summer 1997 overseas audit programme. It should be read in conjunction with HEQC’s published audit report(s) on the UK university or college concerned, details of which can be found in this report.
1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between the University of Northumbria at Newcastle (UNN) and Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory (HLSL), for the purpose of offering programmes of study in Greece leading to awards of the University. It forms part of a series of audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1997. The audit included a visit to HLSL in June 1997.
2 This audit of the partnership arrangements between UNN and HLSL examined the policies and procedures used by the University to satisfy itself of the academic quality and standards of the following awards being offered in Greece:
BA (Hons) International Business Administration (three year route);
BA (Hons) International Business Administration (four year route);
BA (Hons) in Secretarial and Business Administration;
BA (Hons) Marketing;
BSc (Hons) Business Systems and Information Technology;
Postgraduate Diploma/MA in Marketing;
BSc (Hons) Psychology;
BA (Hons) Graphic Design.
3 The Council is grateful to the University and Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory
for their assistance and co-operation.
Abbreviations used in this report
4 In this report the following abbreviations are used:
Apoliterion:
Greek leaving certificate examinations;
1994 Report: University of Northumbria at Newcastle. Quality Audit
Report, HEQC, June 1994;
1997 Report: University of Northumbria at Newcastle.Quality Audit
Report Collaborative Provision, HEQC, February 1997;
BAIBA: BA/BA (Hons) International Business Administration;
Code of Practice: HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision,
Second Edition, 1996;
DRD: Definitive Route Descriptor;
ECS: European College System;
FQC: Faculty quality committee;
HLSL: Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory;
PAB: Programme and Awards Board;
POM: Programme Operations Manual;
Principles and Procedures: (UNN) Principles and Procedures for Collaboration
between Institutions on Taught Programmes;
QIAS: Committee for Quality Improvement and Academic Standards (of the
Academic Board of UNN);
‘route’: a programme of study leading to a named award of the University
of Northumbria at Newcastle;
UNN: University of Northumbria at Newcastle;
NBS: Newcastle Business School.
5 Following initial discussions, the University provided HEQC with documentation describing the origin and development of its partnership with HLSL. At a briefing meeting to discuss this material, the audit team proposed a programme of visits to the partner institutions in the UK and in Greece and sought additional contextual materials to extend its understanding of the structure and processes of the University’s quality assurance arrangements for the instances of its overseas collaborative provision listed in paragraph 2, above.
6 To prepare for the visit to HLSL, and to extend and confirm its findings after its visit to Athens, members of the audit team held discussions with a range of individuals and groups at UNN including the Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic; the Registrar and the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support); deans of faculties and heads of departments; chairs and members of a number of faculty quality committees and validation panels; teachers and administrators supporting the University’s collaboration with HLSL from Newcastle and individuals who had visited the University’s partner in the course of such work.
7 During the visit to HLSL, the audit team met the President of the European College System, of which HLSL is a wholly-owned subsidiary (see below, paragraph 12); locally based teachers delivering the University’s programmes on its behalf in Greece; students following those programmes, and managers and administrators employed by HLSL and its parent organisation to support their delivery.
8 The audit team comprised Dr R M Allen, Professor A Gale and Mr A Jones, auditors, and Ms D Cerqua, audit secretary. Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Group, accompanied the team to Greece and co-ordinated the audit for HEQC.
The context for collaborative provision
9 A report on the University’s arrangements for assuring the quality of its academic provision and the standards of its awards was published by HEQC in June 1994, and a report on the University’s collaborative provision was published by HEQC in February 1997. The 1997 Report noted that the University’s mission statement refers to ‘an expanding international demand for its education services’. The 1997 Report also noted that until recently the University had not chosen ‘to enter into large scale franchising and partnership arrangements with other institutions’but that ‘in the last two years, it has been a matter of deliberate policy to make a determined effort to become a truly international University’(1997 Report, paragraph 5).
10 In June 1996, the University’s Academic Board approved a Policy Statement on the Development and Expansion of Collaborative Arrangements which declared the University’s intention to be an institution ‘which plays its part in serving regional, national and international needs by offering a wide diversity of educational programmes ... and, where appropriate, collaborative relationships with other educational organisations’. A document entitled Principles and Procedures for Collaboration between Institutions on Taught Programmes (Principles and Procedures), approved in March 1996, sets out in greater detail the shape of these collaborative relationships. The University intends that Principles and Procedures will apply to future developments across the whole range of the University’s institutional collaborations within the UK and overseas. Principles and Procedures anticipated the second edition of the HEQC’s Code of Practice by some months, and shared a number of its key features with it and its predecessor, which was published in 1995. It sets out the University’s expectations for the underlying principles of collaboration and the conduct of the process for approving instances of collaboration.
11 The University recognises four types of collaboration: validated, dual awards and joint awards are three of these, the fourth, franchise, being the type which characterises all of its collaborative relationships with its partner in Athens, Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory (HLSL). A franchise is defined by the University as ‘any part of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle’s own approved academic programme (a sole award) which is delivered in and by staff of another institution but which continues to be assessed by the University’. The underlying principles of collaboration are declared to be: consonance with the University’s mission; consistency with faculty and University academic plans and compliance with ‘the HEQC/CVCP Code of Practice’ (sic). The University intends its collaborations to be characterised by commitment, partnership and sharing of responsibilities.
Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory
12 HLSL is a private educational organisation categorised as a Liberal Studies Laboratory within Greece. It is a constituent part of a larger organisation, comprising eight schools and two colleges, called the European College System (ECS), which is also known in Greece as the ‘Xinis Educational Group’. Each constituent of ECS is described as autonomous, functioning as a separate entity with its own educational goals and mission. HLSL is governed by a Board of Directors, three of whom are also members of the ECS Board. The constituents of ECS include Mediterranean College (MC), which currently concentrates on providing foundation courses granting access to UK higher education programmes. Member institutions of ECS share some central services, including those for marketing, publicity, and international and financial matters.
13 ECS was formerly known as the ‘Mediterranean College System’and the retention of the name ‘Mediterranean College’by one of its constituent elements appeared to the audit team to have occasioned a degree of· confusion among members of the University. In practice, University staff refer to HLSL and its parent organisation by a variety of names interchangeably, including Mediterranean College, though the University itself is aware of its partner’s recent change of name.
14 ECS believes itself to be the biggest private educational group in Greece, and is reputed to have 10,000 students, 700 teaching staff, 350 administrative staff and 35 buildings. Should the Greek Government at any time decide to license private sector universities ECS has indicated that it would wish to develop in that direction.
15 Links between UNN and what is now ECS date back to the late 1980s. The first formal agreement between the two was a ‘Transfer Agreement’concluded in 1991, which enabled appropriately qualified Greek students to transfer to Level 2 of the University’s BA (Hons) International Business Studies (BAIBS) at Newcastle. These contacts facilitated the establishment of more formal links, leading to the formulation of a proposal to franchise a modified version of the BAIBS, the BA (Hons) International Business Administration (BAIBA) to HLSL.
Initial approval and validation processes
Systems and Arrangements for Quality Assurance
16 At the time of the audit the University committees with key roles in collaborative partnerships were the Quality Improvement and Academic Standards Committee, known throughout the University as QIAS, a subcommittee of Academic Board, and the Faculty Quality Committees (FQCs), each of which reports to its faculty board and may report to QIAS. The audit team was told that a member of QIAS is assigned to act as the senior Committee’s representative on each FQC, and that meetings of the latter were also attended by members of the Registrar’s Department. In each case, members of QIAS and the Registrar’s Department are expected to report back to QIAS and the Department on matters discussed at FQCs.
17 At the time when the University was first pursuing the possibility of collaboration with HLSL it did not operate a systematic procedure for checking on the status of prospective partner institutions, such as the University’s Principles and Procedures now requires. Although some enquiries had been made by the University of the suitability of HLSL and the former Mediterranean College System (MCS) as a partner, these appeared to have been limited to discussions co-ordinated by the designated University Route Leader and a telephone conversation between the Director of the Newcastle Business School (NBS) and a dean in another University collaborating with MCS.
18 Under the terms of Principles and Procedures the University now encourages early informal consultations with the potential partner, and the promoters of collaboration are encouraged to seek advice from the Registrar’s Department, the University’s Legal Adviser, and its International Office. Promoters of a collaboration are required to deposit a ‘Statement of Intent’using a standard form with the Quality Support Team in the Registrar’s Department, and to notify details of ‘the proposed partner, its status and financial viability’to the dean of the relevant faculty or faculties and secure their approval. This information is conveyed to the University Executive and if the proposal receives its support a ‘letter of intent’to collaborate is sent to the partner.
19 Shortly after the start of the BA (Hons) International Business Administration (BAIBA) franchise, the then Pro-Vice Chancellor Academic conducted a visit to HLSL, accompanied by three senior University colleagues. This visit was occasioned by discussions between HLSL and UNN faculties to franchise other University programmes of study (or as they are referred to throughout the University ‘routes’[to named awards]) to HLSL, which were taking place against a background of general concerns on the part of the British Council and HEQC about collaborative arrangements between UK and Greek partners.
20 The group which visited HLSL submitted a report to the Quality Improvement and Academic Standards Committee (QIAS) in March 1995, at which the Chair concluded ‘that no further developments would take place with the Greek Institution’. This prohibition did not, however, extend to the franchise of a route leading to a BA (Hons) in Secretarial and Business Administration (which had yet to recruit students at the time of the audit) or preliminary discussions on the development of a psychology route.
21 The report of the visiting party also recommended an increase in the frequency and intensity with which the progress of the BAIBA franchise was to be monitored, and that the discretion allowed to HLSL to recruit ‘probationary’students with low Apoliterion intakes to the BAIBA in Athens should be curtailed. In its discussions QIAS also minuted that if monitoring of the BAIBA ‘proved satisfactory, further developments would be considered’. In practice this monitoring was carried out by members of the Business School and it was not immediately apparent to the audit team that their findings had been passed to the QIAS.
22 Notwithstanding the University’s expressed wish in 1995 for a pause in the pace of developments with HLSL, bilateral discussions between HLSL and individual UNN faculties continued throughout 1995 and the early part of 1996. These discussions culminated in a conjoint approval process for six new franchise routes (including a route leading to a taught postgraduate award) and two new variants of the BAIBA, the full extent of which only appeared to have become apparent to the University when planning for the franchise approval meeting commenced, shortly before the approval meeting itself (for details of this event, see below, paragraph 28). Reflecting upon this pattern of events, it appeared to the audit team that it demonstrated the possibility that faculties could sidestep the University’s. capacity to exercise oversight of their activities. The University will wish to consider the necessity of satisfying itself that recent amendments to its quality assurance and quality control measures will ensure that such a situation cannot recur.
Development of franchise and route proposals
23 Once the detailed proposal for a new route or the franchise of an existing route has been developed it is scrutinised by the appropriate FQC, which should also receive summaries of the outcomes of any initial scrutiny and screening process. A proposal which has the approval of the relevant FQC is sent to the QIAS, which identifies one of its members to chair a panel to scrutinise the proposal. There is provision for this panel to include a member of the University from a faculty not involved in the proposal and an appropriately qualified external member.
Approval of proposals for collaboratively delivered
routes
24 For overseas collaborations, a visit to the partner is not a mandatory requirement in the approvals process itself; however, in practice, visits are almost always made in such cases to scrutinise the arrangements for the delivery of the specified academic provision (see the 1997 Report, paragraph 30). To support the work of a Panel visiting an overseas partner a detailed brief is normally prepare& by the University, which reminds Panel members of the need to be satisfied ‘that the other party is of a standing to uphold UNN’s standards’. Although the University plans to extend the range of responsibilities it has delegated to its faculties to include the approval stage for all University-based proposals, it has no plans to extend this delegation to the approval of proposals for collaborative activities, including those for overseas collaborations. Once the QIAS Panel is satisfied that the proposal can be approved, a ‘Memorandum of Co-operation’is drawn up by the University’s Legal Adviser which should be completed and signed by the partners before the programme commences.
Approval of the BAIBA franchise route in 1994
25 In 1994, different and less formal processes than those described above were applied to the scrutiny and approval of the proposal to franchise the whole of the BAIBA to HLSL In this instance, the structure of the route was altered in a number of respects: supplementary English Language units were added to the curriculum over the first five semesters, necessitating a four year structure for the degree, and provision was made for Level I and Level 2 units to be taught in Greek (see below, paragraph 40).
26 The Panel established by QIAS to examine this proposal comprised three members, two of whom, including the chair, were from outside the Business School. The Panel did not include a member external to the University. The Panel visited Athens, accompanied by the University Programme Director for the BAIBA. It held meetings with staff from HLSL and visited library, computer and classroom facilities, and recommended conditional approval of the franchise for five years. The conditions attached to the approval included the specification of levels of student competence in English for entry to the route, a requirement that an exploration of the staff development needs of the HLSL staff should be undertaken (see below, paragraph 54), and stated the arrangements to be followed in transferring students from a degree run by HLSL in partnership with a higher education institution in California to the second year of the franchised BAIBA. The Panel also suggested that some of the existing BAIBA units, particularly those dealing with Business Law, might need to be modified to take account of the Greek context.
Approval of routes franchised in 1996
27 In 1996, six further UNN routes and two new full-time BAIBA routes were submitted for approval. In the case of the latter, it was proposed to introduce a three year and four year version of the BAIBA, both of which would improve the articulation possible with the assessment processes operated by the University in Newcastle (see below, paragraph 41). At the time of the audit, two versions of BAIBA were in operation at HLSL, the revised version in year one and its predecessor in the second, third and fourth years of the programme.
28 The franchise approval event which was held at UNN in July 1996 was conducted under the University’s newly established procedures (see above, paragraph 24). The University’s Panel was chaired by the Dean of a faculty not involved in the proposals, together with four other members of staff of the University similarly placed, and an experienced member of another UK University. The Panel noted that taken together the proposals could result in an increase in the number of UNN students at HLSL to more than 800 over a four year period. The Panel expressed a number of reservations in its report concerning the overall management of the partnership by LTNN and HLSL; the sufficiency of communication between the three faculties involved in the proposals; the resources available for the delivery of the routes at HLSL, including staffing; the delivery of the English Language component, particularly in relation to the proposal to franchise a route in Psychology; and the equivalence of standards with routes delivered at the University.
29 Responding to the Panel’s concerns, members of the Business School described plans to match expansion of the student numbers within the partnership with corresponding resource developments; for the appointment of an overall co-ordinator for the BAIBA and the additional proposals; and that in future the activities of HLSL would be concentrated solely on the University’s routes. Finally, the Panel was assured that the appointment of two external examiners for each of the routes would help to guarantee comparability of standards, that one external examiner would be Greek-speaking, and that both would be based in the UK. These plans were incorporated into the Panel’s recommendations in approving all the proposals. The Panel also suggested the development of a set of common operating arrangements and an annual review of the franchises by QIAS.
30 Commenting on its experience of the approvals process in 1996, the University told the audit team that all the conditions of approval had been met at the time of the present audit, but the practical means whereby the University had satisfied itself that this was the case were not clear to the team. For example, it was not clear whether the confirmation that the conditions had been met had taken the form of certification by the Chair of the Panel, its Secretary or the Chair of QIAS.
Reflections on the approval of additional routes to HLSL in 1996
31 The audit team remains concerned that the University’s delegation of responsibility for the development of collaborative proposals to its faculties might limit its ability to monitor and control the pace of development and the range and scope of the University’s overseas collaborative arrangements in line with its intentions (see above, paragraph 22). The new initiatives with HLSL, which seemed to the team to be in various stages of development within the faculties, did not allay its unease in this matter.
32 The original Memorandum of Co-operation for the 1994 approval of the BAIBA was not provided for the audit team (although the definitive route descriptor (DRD) was provided). The team did see all of those for the 1996 validations, however, including that for the revised BAIBA. It noted that each of these documents was titled ‘Co-operation Agreement’and that they had all been signed in September 1996, before the routes had started, as prescribed by the University’s procedures.
Monitoring and review arrangements
33 Annual review of the University’s routes and their component parts is primarily a matter for teaching teams and departments within the faculties. The committee managing each route is required to conduct an annual review of its provision, in the course of which it is required to report on any collaborative arrangements. Although the faculties differ to some extent in the way in which they deal with the reports arising from these reviews, it appears that such reports may only be seen in precis form by FQCs. This process has the potential to strip important parts of the informing context away from the information which reaches the FQCs, possibly reducing the capacity of Committee members to exercise independent judgement on the reports. At the University level, as part of the Annual Review process, FQCs submit a summary report to QIAS on matters identified during the Review, which may include matters of good practice or wider concern. QIAS may request reports from FQCs on specific issues and themes but does not receive the full minutes of FQC meetings.
34 At the time of the audit, only the BAIBA had been in operation for more than one year, so it was only in relation to this collaborative arrangement that the audit team was able to examine the full cycle of annual review. The team was able to read the review reports for 1994-95 and for 1995-96, in the versions provided by the HLSL Route Committee and the University Programme Leader for BAIBA. The subsequent report for 1994-95 from HLSL lacked factual detail but frankly identified a series of difficulties and enclosed an extensive action plan to address them. The report on action taken indicated that issues were being dealt with, some at least by staff development for members of H[SL. The team was surprised that the 1994-95 report had not referred to the visit by the Pro-Vice Chancellor and his colleagues, especially since the report of that group contained an examination of issues arising from the BAIBA, and the team noted some discrepancies between the two reports, for example, on admission requirements for students. The 1994-95 review also contained information about student progression, and examination and assessment arrangements. The reports over the two years show, however, a considerable development in the appreciation of HLSL of the information that should be supplied to the University, and the format in which it should be presented. In addition to these cyclical reports the University has monitored the progress of its routes and students at HLSL through visits to HLSL by members of the University to follow up specific matters.
UNN ‘Co-ordinator for all routes’
35 Following approval of the new franchise routes in 1996, the University appointed an experienced member of the Business School to act as the University’s overall Co-ordinator for the routes it was offering in collaboration with HLSL. At the same time the Business School appointed an administrative co-ordinator to be responsible for all its own franchises to HLSL. Both appointments appeared to the audit team to have contributed to improvements in the running of the collaborative arrangements, and to have been welcomed by HLSL. Although it seemed to the team that the Co-ordinator was understandably more familiar with programmes in her own School, it appeared that she had developed good relationships with staff in the other two faculties working with HLSL and was dealing with issues of commonality and the dissemination of good practice, whilst leaving subject specific issues to the teaching staff in the faculties (see below, paragraph 63). The University is to be commended for designating these posts.
36 The audit team followed up initial developments in relation to each of the new routes franchised by the University to HLSL in 1996 and noted that in the early months of the new franchises significant operational difficulties had been brought to light through visits conducted by UNN subject staff. In each case, however, the direct intervention of the University’s staff had enabled it and its partner to address these matters satisfactorily. In the light of these occurrences, the University may consider it advisable for QIAS to adopt a more active stance towards the monitoring and review of the University’s overseas collaborative routes, particularly in their first months of operation. It may wish to include as part of such a more active approach provision for special visits, such as that carried out on its behalf to HLSL in 1995.
Academic standards and the assessment of students
37 The assessment arrangements for the BAIBA, were initially set out in the proposal for its franchise to HLSL and were endorsed by the approval Panel which scrutinised the proposal on behalf of the University’s Academic Board in May 1994. The report from the Panel did not explicitly state that the programme was to operate under the University’s regulations, but this was implied in the record of its discussions. The report also noted the intention of the NBS to identify a Greek-speaking external examiner for appointment by the University, and recommended adjustments to the general UNN assessment regulations to reflect the fact that the BAIBA was to be delivered over four years of study.
38 Formal agreements between UNN and HLSL were concluded for each of the six routes franchised by the University for the first time to HLSL in 1996, each similar to that concluded in respect of the BAIBA. Four of the six routes were proposals for further franchises by the NBS. For the three undergraduate routes, it was stated that they would follow the assessment arrangements developed for the BAIBA (see below). For the Postgraduate Diploma/MA in Marketing, it was proposed that the assessment arrangements for the franchised route would be identical to those for the UK-based route. Finally, when the validation panel discussed the franchise of the BSc (Hons) Psychology and the BA (Hons) Graphic Design to HLSL, it noted that in each case assessment arrangements for the franchised route would follow ‘the NBS model’, although the key features of this ‘NBS model’were not defined.
39 In view of the importance of this ‘NBS model’as an exemplar
for the operation of assessment arrangements for the routes franchised
in 1996, the audit team was surprised that its main features had not been
set out at that time. When franchising routes to overseas partner institutions
in future, the University may consider it advisable to specify in the memorandum
of cooperation that the operation of the route will be subject to its regulations
and any particular arrangements for the assessment of students that it
would expect to be followed.
Progression and assessment arrangements for the BAIBA
40 The arrangements established by the NBS for the assessment of its students at HLSL followed the University’s standard requirements. Modules in the BAIBA route are categorised as Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3. As originally validated, students following the BAIBA route were allowed to complete Level 1 of the award over four semesters (two years) and to study a limited number of Level 2 modules concurrently with Level 1 modules. All modules were and are credit rated within a 360 credit structure, in which students must secure 120 credit points at Level 3 to qualify for the award of an honours degree. Decisions on progression and degree classification are made by the relevant UNN Progress and Assessment Board (PAB), advised by an Examination Review Board convened in Athens but chaired by a designated member of UNN. Decisions on degree classifications are made by the relevant PAB on the basis of performance in Level 3 units only.
41 In 1995-96 the NBS reviewed its experience in operating these arrangements
for the BAIBA and found that the concurrent delivery and assessment of
a mixture of Level 1 and Level 2 units had made it difficult to synchronise
the work of the examination review boards in Athens with that of the route’s
Progress and Assessment Board at Newcastle. It was this experience which
had encouraged the School to revise the BAIBA routes in 1996 (see above,
paragraph 27).
Setting of assessments and examinations
42 The work of students following each of the routes offered by UNN in partnership with HLSL is assessed through a mixture of coursework assignments and examinations and the mode of assessment for each module is set out in its descriptor document. Coursework assignments are set by staff in Newcastle, although HLSL staff are consulted about titles and amendments may be made. The assignments are marked initially by HLSL staff and moderated by UNN staff using a clearly specified sampling methodology.
43 Examination papers for the NBS are set by UNN staff although the views and comments of members of staff at HLSL are sought. If amendments are proposed and accepted, the revised examination paper becomes the paper for all students, wherever located. Examination questions and samples of students’coursework and examination scripts are translated for the benefit of members of the University by part-time staff in Newcastle retained for the purpose. Initially HLSL staff were given a brief opportunity to check the accuracy of translations into Greek a few hours before the examination papers were issued to students. Although this enhanced the security of the examinations process it also made it difficult to correct any inaccuracies detected by HLSL staff in the translations prepared for UNN in the UK. The arrangements for scrutiny by the HLSL staff were subsequently amended to allow more time for any necessary corrections to be made to the translated questions.
Supervision of examinations and marking of papers
44 The University has expended considerable time and effort to ensure that the examination process is secure, for example, by directly controlling the storage and issue of question papers and answer books in Athens. Examinations are supervised and invigilated by UNN staff and at the end of each examination a random sample of scripts is photocopied by University staff to provide a control sample for translation (if the scripts are written in Greek), monitoring and moderation. The samples are brought back to the UK by UNN staff supervising the examinations, but papers taken early in the examination cycle are sent to Newcastle by a secure courier arrangement, to allow enough time for moderation. The identity of the scripts chosen for this purpose is not disclosed to HLSL or University staff. The University considers that this technique permits UNN staff marking the equivalent units delivered in the UK to monitor the marking standards of their Greek colleagues, and offers it a direct means of ensuring the maintenance of the standards through its assessment processes.
45 The marks of students following UNN programmes of study at HLSL are monitored and moderated by UNN staff in the UK. They are initially considered at an examination review board in Athens, chaired by a member of UNN in the presence of the University’s external examiner, before being sent to the PAB in Newcastle where final decisions on progression and classification are taken.
46 The audit team was provided with sample minutes for examination review boards held in Athens in 1996 which allowed it to confirm that the procedures followed were identical to those described above. The team was also able to confirm from its discussions at HLSL that all part-time teaching staff were both members of the route committee and attended the examination review board meeting. The results of each cohort are subjected to annual statistical analysis, the broad features of which are reported in the annual review of routes and programmes required by the University. The team also learnt, from its discussions with HLSL staff, that a group of ‘probationary’students who had been admitted with qualifications which were considered only marginally acceptable had been statistically monitored and compared with the main group of students (see above, paragraph 21). The annual review reports which the University provided for the team acknowledged that the pass rates for the routes offered through HLSL were lower than those for the equivalent routes offered by the University in the UK but considered that they were broadly acceptable.
47 The University frankly acknowledged in its own papers that some of its
decisions to admit Greek students from other programmes of study in Greece
and accord them advanced standing might have been unwise, in that the students
so admitted had struggled (and, in a number of cases, failed) to meet its
standards: Such openness suggested to the audit team that it was likely
that members of the University (in this instance, of NBS) were actively
reflecting on the lessons of this experience. The University’s annual
reporting processes do not, however, provide an opportunity for the number
of referrals for particular students and cohorts to be noted, thereby depriving
it of an important additional source of information on the progress of
its students studying overseas and the academic wellbeing of individual
modules and routes delivered collaboratively. The University may wish to
consider the desirability of introducing such information into its annual
reviews. The team noted with interest that the 1996 validation panel had
recommended that henceforth students should not be admitted with advanced
standing to Level 2 or Level 3 of the NBS routes until those levels of
the routes had been delivered to ‘standard entry’students.
The University is to be commended for the thoroughness and openness of
its assessment processes for its students at HLSL.
Appointment of external examiner
48 In the initial validation of the BAIBA the NBS proposed to appoint one of its existing UK-based external examiners, who coincidentally spoke and read Greek, as the external examiner for the route. The University’s capacity to monitor the level and standards of the route at HLSL leading to the BAIBA award have in its own view been crucially dependent on the manner in which the responsibilities assigned to this examiner have been discharged.
49 The duties of the Greek-speaking external examiner for the BAIBA include monitoring and moderating the marking of course work assignments and examination scripts and attending the examination review boards held for each year of the route. The external examiner has also provided judicious advice on the cultural and educational context for higher education in Greece, and observed and reported on the supervision and conduct of the examinations process. His confirmation that he was satisfied with the progress being made in the development of the BAIBA programme was cited by the University to its approval Panel in 1996 as an important reason for proceeding with the further academic developments that took place at that time. The audit team noted that the University intends to appoint UK-based, Greek-speaking external examiners for all its HLSL programmes, a proposal which, while based in the soundness of its present arrangements might, in the view of the team, eventually present the University with difficulty in finding suitable candidates, a matter of which it is doubtless aware.
50 In relation to assessment, the University’s Principles and Procedures sets out its expectation that the nature of the assessment processes to be operated across the partnership would be explored at the outset of inter-institutional contacts. It indicates that, at the earliest opportunity, student and academic regulations, and assessment and examination arrangements, including the procedures for the nomination and appointment of external examiners, would need to be specified for later incorporation in legally enforceable instruments.
51 The University’s arrangements for student representation and for consulting student opinion at HLSL are the same as for students based on its own campuses in the UK. Student representatives attend route committee meetings of the BAIBA in Athens and the minutes of these meetings show that they have raised a wide range of pertinent matters for consideration by HLSL. Students who met the audit team confined that such arrangements extended to all the routes currently operated at HLSL. It was, however, less clear to the team how these such matters were addressed by HLSL and the University: there were only occasional references in the minutes of such meetings to action taken or in prospect in response to student representations. All student representatives at HLSL are invited to attend a meeting each semester with a member of the University and whilst outstanding matters of student concern may be appropriately resolved at such semesterly meetings, the University may consider it desirable to ensure that its partner takes action on matters raised in meetings of route committees, especially those relating to students.
52 There is an orientation day at HLSL for new students at the beginning of the academic year which students found helpful, and at the beginning of each semester students are briefed on assessment and examination requirements and the dates on which assignments must be submitted and examinations will be held. Students told the audit team that they received appropriate feedback on their assignments, though comments were a little stilted. UNN students at HLSL are each assigned to a personal counsellor who is a member of the teaching staff to whom they may go if they experience difficulties. Students told the audit team that H[SL route leaders and assistant route leaders were accessible and helpful and that they had met University staff on their visits to Athens.
53 Each semester the University requires all students to complete a monitoring questionnaire for the units they attend and, in addition, HLSL administers its own questionnaires to students on some routes. The audit team examined both the detailed list of questions and an extensive graphical analysis of the aggregate data from the questionnaires. It was clear that students did complete the questionnaires and that they were analysed, although the graphical representation of the data was not always an aid to understanding. In keeping with University-wide practice there appeared to be no feedback to students on the outcomes of such analysis; should a significant level of dissatisfaction be reported for a particular unit, it was not clear how the University would inform students of its response. The University may wish to consider the desirability of providing feedback to students on the nature of their aggregate responses to its questions and the action it plans to take in reply.
Staffing and staff development
54 In considering the 1994 proposal to franchise the BAIBA to HLSL, the University Panel offered recommendations on the staff development needs of HLSL, but did not appear to have considered it necessary to offer any written advice on the nature and number of the teaching team that would be required at HLSL as the programme developed. By way of contrast, the Panel which considered the expansion of the partnership in 1996 had the benefit of being able to draw on the University’s Principles and Procedures and the first edition of the HEQC Code of Practice. The Panel appeared to have discussed the constitution and experience of the potential teaching teams for each of the routes under consideration with some care, but again forbore to offer any specific advice or recommendations for monitoring the constitution of the teaching team over time or support for staff development at HLSL.
55 The University’s statement of Principles and Procedures stipulates
that Panels considering partnership arrangements should scrutinise the curricula
vitae of the staff who it is proposed will deliver the collaborative
programme in the partner institution. However Principles and Procedures does
not invite FQCs or other University bodies to require partners to notify
UNN of changes in the team teaching a collaboratively delivered programme,
or suggest the advisability of allowing the participation of the University
in the appointment of new members to such a teaching team. The audit team
learnt, from its discussions with teaching staff in Athens, that their curricula
vitae had been sent to UNN for scrutiny and that, at least in some
cases, there had been discussions with senior academic staff at the University
over appointments. The team also noted that two members of full-time staff
whom it met, one the overall co-ordinator for all the programmes, the other
a route leader, worked solely in an administrative capacity and were employed
by the parent organisation, ECS, and not HLSL and that they both had responsibilities
in other parts of the organisation. Whilst the team noted that the staff
appeared to have been properly appointed and that its partner was, at the
time of the audit, able to maintain a low student-staff ratio, including
generous administrative support, the University will no doubt wish to consider
the advisability of further formalising its involvement in appointments
procedures at HLSL in view of the likelihood that additional staff will
be appointed as the programmes approved in 1996 become fully operational.
Staff development
56 The need to identify and support staff development opportunities for members of the teaching staff at HLSL was established at the outset of the partnership. The Chair of the Panel which recommended approval of the franchise called attention to the need to provide staff development and for references to staff development to be included in the Co-operation Agreement between the partners. Such a reference was duly included, expressed as a certain number of days of staff development per route up to a specified annual limit. Such a requirement has been a feature of successive co-operation agreements between the University and HLSL.
57 The University’s initial assessment of the staff development its partner would need before beginning to deliver the BAIBA were set out in the 1994 definitive route descriptor (DRD) for the franchised route, which provided for an intensive programme of visits over several months by the UK-based Programme Director and a number of UNN unit leaders to work with their HLSL colleagues to prepare the latter to deliver Level 1 and Level 2 units. The University’s commitment to provide staff development for Athens-based tutors is indicated by the focus of these arrangements and the commendable energy with which its staff have addressed these tasks.
58 In the 1996 approval of the six new awards, staff development needs were specifically referred to although in the case of programmes outwith the remit of the Business School, statements on this matter are not as explicit or as clearly focused as they might be. Full-time and part-time staff have frequent access to staff development opportunities and many have visited the University in Newcastle to receive further development and familiarisation with the University’s operations. The audit team noted with interest the University’s intention to establish a series of seminars for the senior members of HLSL to introduce them to a range of topics dealing with university management and strategic planning. While the University may wish to consider the desirability of bringing all the programme operations manuals into line with regard to staff development, it is to be commended on its handling of development for the full range of staff working for its partner to support the University’s provision in Athens.
Publicity and promotional materials
59 The newly adopted provisions of Principles and Procedures require the promoters of proposals to provide information on the responsibilities of the partners at the time of notifying the University of their wish to proceed to elaborate the proposal. Among the responsibilities to be settled in outline at this stage are those for marketing, publicity, and recruitment arrangements.
60 At the time of the original BAIBA validation and approval, this matter does not appear to have been discussed by the Panel or to have formed part of the original Co-operation Agreement; nor is it referred to in the Programme Operations Manual (POM) issued for the BAIBA in 1994.
61 For the 1996 approvals, it might have been expected that the requirements
of the University’s own Principles and Procedures or indeed,
of the first edition of the HEQC Code of Practice, might have led
the University to have included formal restrictions on the freedom of HLSL
to advertise or promote UNN programmes without the prior approval of the
University. This did not appear to have been the case, however, and the
University may wish to consider the advisability of formal means to safeguard
its interests in this matter.
Operational promotion of the University’s routes and
programmes of study in Greece
62 The audit team was told by the University that in the past it had experienced no difficulty in securing the agreement of HLSL to scrutiny and approval by I-INN of the content of publicity material distributed by HLSL in Greece. In the case of promotional material for one of the new franchises, the audit team noted that, in a reference to the BSc (Hons) Psychology, the statement that the UNN course had BPS approval had the potential, without further qualification, to mislead students. In its discussions with students, it was apparent that students themselves felt that as a result of their studies with HLSL they would get BPS recognition, and that the general terms in which some statements included in promotional material had been couched may have not have indicated the facts of the matter with sufficient clarity.
63 Responsibility for agreeing advertising copy and promotional brochures has now been assigned to the UNN Co-ordinator (see above, paragraph 35). The NBS administrative co-ordinator told the audit team that copy for advertisements and brochures, and video tapes of TV advertisements and cassettes of radio material was sent by HLSL to Newcastle and that the Coordinator’s Office examined the content in a translation provided by the partner; this copy is also scrutinised and approved by the University’s Corporate Affairs Office before authorisation to disseminate promotional materials is given to HLSL. The University may consider it advisable from time to time to check the accuracy of such translations to reassure itself and its partner of the security of these arrangements.
Conclusions and points for further consideration
64 Following a period of several years of growing acquaintanceship between members of the University and staff of what is now the European College System (ECS) in Athens, the University and ECS embarked on a partnership in 1994 to deliver a franchised version of the University’s BA (Hons) International Business Administration in Athens through an ECS subsidiary: Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory (HLSL). In 1995, against a background of requests from ECS for the rapid expansion of the partnership, senior members of the University visited Athens and recommended the maintenance of firm University control over the new franchise, a further tightening of control in some areas, notably the admission and assessment of students, and a pause in further developments to allow the partners, and particularly the University, to gauge the success of the partnership.
65 The measures called for and accepted by the University in 1995 have been partly successful in allowing it to exercise control over the development of the partnership. To date, the University’s processes of approval, monitoring and assessment have proved adequate to the task, though there is potential for improvement in the way in which partner institutions are initially approved. Its assessment procedures, where firm control continues to reside with its progression and awards boards at Newcastle, allow the University to be confident that it is maintaining the standards of its awards.
66 Responsibility for monitoring the progress of individual University routes offered through HLSL rests aImost exclusively, however, with the University’s faculties and their quality committees. It is not clear to the audit team that the Academic Board’s Committee for Quality Improvement and Academic Standards and, through the Committee, the Board itself, can be confident in their knowledge of what is being done in the faculties on behalf of the University, or that the University currently has the means to monitor the development of the partnership as a whole. Attention to these matters before the scale of the University’s overseas collaborations increases further would be advisable.
67 The University expects to reap considerable benefits of scale as its partnership develops, for example, through sample monitoring and the economies of University staff visits dealing with more partner staff and students. The University may well reap such benefits but, at the same time, it will also need to be conscious of the costs of scale. For example, there will be costs associated with managing expansion in the number of the teaching staff who will be needed at HLSL to deliver University routes, and recruiting or redirecting the senior staff needed to manage such an enterprise, in whom the University will need to place considerable trust. As student numbers at HLSL expand, the University will also acquire the responsibility for satisfying itself about the quality of the experience of this larger body of students. No doubt, the University will expect to be aided by its partner and its considerable resources, but the latter may not in future be able to sustain such a generous share of these resources as it, too, wishes to experience the benefits of scale. Continued vigilance by both the University and its partner will be needed.
68 Since 1994 the University has established a firm and now exclusive relationship with Hellinofono Liberal Studies Laboratory in Athens. As the franchises approved in 1996 come to fruition, student numbers, currently over 200, have the potential to quadruple. The University has the prospect therefore, of developing a partnership which will be the equivalent in student numbers and staff to the size of a large school or a small faculty in many UK universities. The increasing size of Hellinofono has brought to the fore the possibility that its parent organisation, ECS, might develop towards becoming a university-level institution in the private sector in Greece. The University’s response to this potential development has been to provide the senior staff of its partner with access to the staff development opportunities it considers will provide them with the skills and perspectives which they will need. This approach indicates that the University continues to repose a high level of confidence in Hellinofono and the future of their partnership, which has enabled the University to create a significant presence in Greece. In the opinion of the audit team this has been, and continues to be, a signal achievement.
Top