Introduction
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Council's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education (1996) (HEQC's Code), which has now been replaced by QAA's Code.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 the University of Sheffield (the University) and CITY Liberal Studies (CITY) for the delivery by CITY of a range of programmes leading to awards of the University. At undergraduate level, the programmes provided currently are a BA (Honours) Business Studies (which comprises three routes in Management, Marketing, and Accounting and Finance), BSc (Honours) Computer Science, and BA (Honours) Psychology. The postgraduate programmes are an Executive MBA, MSc Information Systems, MSc Banking and Finance, MSc Management, MSc Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations, and MSc Logistics Management. An MA in Leisure and Tourism Management is scheduled to begin in October 2001. Two of the programmes - the Executive MBA and the MSc Information Systems - are described by the University as franchises; the remainder are validations. There are also a small number of postgraduate students at CITY who are registered for doctoral studies under the University's Remote Location Scheme. This involves an initial period of residence at the University, followed by a programme of study at CITY with the primary supervision from University staff. Current student numbers total over 500, the details of which are attached as appendix B to this report.
6 CITY is a private college founded in 1989 and based in Thessaloniki. It is part of the larger Strategakis group of educational institutions which includes some 160 English language and secondary schools in Greece and the Balkan peninsula. All of its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes are offered in collaboration with the University. The language of delivery and assessment is English, although with an important exception (see below, paragraph 40). In 2001 CITY was accredited and recognised by the British Accreditation Council for Independent Further and Higher Education as an institution providing higher education.
7 In 1997, CITY made a successful application to the University for the conferment of the status of 'Affiliate Institution', the first time such status had been granted to an overseas partner. The Commentary prepared for the purposes of the audit described the title as 'largely symbolic' but 'granted in recognition of the extremely high regard in which the College is held'.
8 The audit team members who conducted the UK visit to the University of Sheffield were Mr D C Attwood (audit secretary), Ms S J Clark, Dr P A J Easy and Mr R P Williams. The members of the team who visited CITY 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
9 The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision has its origins in the 1993 Corporate Plan, which committed the institution to an expansion of off-campus provision through an extension of both franchise and validation arrangements. To support these developments, a Board of Collegiate Studies (BCS), chaired by a Pro Vice-Chancellor, was established as a subcommittee of Senate to take responsibility for all aspects of collaborative provision, acting 'in many respects...as an additional faculty board'. In the same year, an Office of Collegiate Studies (OCS) was created to provide administrative support for BCS's work. Between 1996-98, the University reviewed its position on collaborative provision, including the role and operation of BCS, taking into account the recommendations of HEQC's quality audit report of 1997. The result was a new strategic approach for BCS, which included providing 'support to the University in the development of its international collaborative arrangements', and the introduction of 'structures and processes...comparable to those used to assure the quality of on-campus provision'.
10 At the time of the audit, a further review of the structures, membership and procedures of BCS was in progress. The Commentary reported that the review had been prompted by a perceived 'absence of ownership' by University departments and faculties of the collaborative provision with which they were involved; the intention was to increase their direct participation, 'and thus...sense of responsibility', in the work of BCS. Proposals include greater representation from faculties and departments in the membership of BCS itself, and the amendment of its subcommittee structure to clarify responsibilities for quality and standards.
11 The University's arrangements for managing collaborative provision are detailed in a Collegiate Studies Documentation File (the File), comprising a Handbook and Guidelines on the conduct of examinations (the Handbook). The Handbook sets out a range of procedures for matters such as the process for approving new partner institutions and the responsibilities of moderators, and includes the University's formal regulations governing collaborative programmes. The audit team found the File to be a comprehensive document, although it noted several instances in which the procedures and advice contained within were not strictly observed by the University (see below, paragraphs 30 and 43).
12 The audit team was unclear, from the Handbook and associated documents, how the distinction between franchised programmes and validated programmes was understood and used by the University. While there were some clear differences between the programmes formally designated as being franchised or validated - examples included the approval process for new programmes and the composition of boards of examiners - elsewhere the distinction had been blurred. There is no difference, for example, in the status of students in relation to the University, contrary to the views of some staff who met the team (see below, paragraph 23). The Handbook does not prescribe, as might be expected for franchised programmes, a retention of University control over programme delivery, assessment and quality assurance beyond that stipulated for validated programmes. There is also some inconsistency in the formal Agreements for programmes within the same category: while the Agreements governing the validated undergraduate programmes state that the University's prior approval is required for changes to the curricula, this regulation is not included in the Agreement for the validated postgraduate programmes.
13 University staff who met the audit team saw franchising and validation as a continuum through which, in the words of the Commentary, 'a number of programmes effectively started out as franchises but quickly evolved to better reflect the expertise of local staff and the needs of local students...a positive development allowing partner institutions to take responsibility for and feel ownership of the programmes they deliver'. This view notwithstanding, the University may wish to reflect on whether its current approach is consistent with that generally accepted within the sector, and on the merits of adopting a clearer understanding of the meaning of the terms 'franchised' and 'validated', if they are to remain part of its vocabulary for collaborative activities. The importance of specifying more clearly its procedures and expectations relating to franchising, as distinct from validation, was a matter raised for the University's attention in 1996, in a previous overseas partnership audit report.
14 The Commentary did not refer explicitly to the ways in which the University was responding to QAA's Code. The audit team was informed that an 'analysis of compliance' had been undertaken, that the University was satisfied that it was adhering to the Code in most, if not all, respects, and that the Code was informing the current review of BCS. During the course of the audit, the team confirmed that the University had accommodated much of the advice given in the Code although there remained some areas in which its precepts had not been applied (see below, paragraphs 21 and 24-25).
15 The Commentary offered no direct statement on the extent to which the University considered its management of the link with CITY to be representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, which is fairly limited in size and scope. It stated, however, that there was 'a significant degree of commonality' between partnerships and that the University's link with CITY 'displays examples of good practice' that BCS 'seeks to spread to the University's other collaborative arrangements'.
The establishment and management of the link
The approval process
16 The Commentary reported that all of the University's collaborative provision had been developed following direct requests from potential partners. In the case of CITY, an approach was made in 1992 and the first programmes - ordinary Bachelors degrees in Business Studies and Computer Science, and a franchised MSc in Computer Science - were approved and launched in 1993. The University carried out an institutional evaluation of CITY during 1992-93. It was evident from the documentation relating to this period that, through a series of informal and formal visits, a thorough appraisal had been undertaken which included contextual matters (including the position of private colleges in Greece); scrutiny of the academic reputation and standards of CITY programmes; and a detailed analysis of its resources and financial position. The team conducting the evaluations had included senior academic staff from the appropriate University departments, and representatives of its Academic Registry, Finance Department and Library. Although the exercise pre-dated the more formal and systematic approach for appraising proposed collaborative links described in the Handbook, the University is to be commended for its clear and detailed assessment of CITY as a potential partner.
17 Since 1993, there have been numerous developments in the link, including the upgrading of the initial undergraduate degrees to Honours status, and the approval of other undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. The process for such approvals is specified in the Handbook: a recommendation is made by BCS on receipt of the reports of visiting panels of University academic and administrative staff. The audit team had access to the papers and reports generated by this process and, in most cases, found them to be detailed, thorough, and sufficient to enable BCS to reach an informed decision.
18 As noted in HEQC's quality audit report of 1997, the programme approval process to date has not required the participation of subject experts external to the University. Through the current review of collaborative activity (see above, paragraph 10), the University intends to strengthen further the process and is considering the formal scrutiny of proposals by the most appropriate departmental committee, prior to their consideration by BCS. The University informed the audit team subsequently that the review had also resulted in a new approval mechanism that included a requirement for external involvement in the approval of new programmes.
19 Given the generally robust nature of the approval procedures, the audit team noted that the development of the BA (Honours) Psychology appeared to have been significantly different from the approval of other undergraduate programmes. This development, described to the team as being initiated on 'a green field site', began in 1998 with preliminary reports compiled in April and September of that year. A validation panel visited CITY in May 1999 at a time when only the level 1 modules had reached any stage of development. On receipt of the panel's report, BCS approved the recruitment of a first cohort of students in autumn 1999 but was unable to give approval for the remaining levels of the programme. The initiation, in effect, of a phased validation process was noted as a cause for concern by BCS, but this did not prevent the signing of a formal Agreement in November 1999 and a description of the degree appearing in the CITY undergraduate prospectus, both referring to a full programme which had not been approved. In fact, further iterations between CITY and the University were necessary before level 1 itself was deemed ready for delivery. BCS's Regulations Sub-Group gave retrospective approval for the degree's regulatory framework in February 2000. Subsequently, the level 2 modules were approved by BCS in November 2000, following prior Chair's action, on the basis of a brief letter from the University's moderator. At the time of the audit, discussions on level 3 were still in progress. While it was clear to the team that the support provided by the University to CITY in developing the programme had been extensive and helpful, it was evident that the approval process had fallen short of BCS's normal standards. The University may wish to consider, in particular, whether it can properly operate the principle of phased development and validation given the approach that it takes to its obligations to students (see below, paragraphs 22-23).
20 The audit team also encountered some difficulty in establishing a definitive list of the programmes offered through the link. While appreciating that inevitably provision will change in a dynamic partnership, the team noted that some programmes which had ceased recruitment or been superseded were still present in either University documentation or CITY prospectuses. Examples included an MSc Marketing which had been replaced by the MSc Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations, and undergraduate programmes in Information Technology (as listed in the CITY prospectus) or Business Studies and Information Technology (as listed in the University's Commentary) which did not appear ever to have run. These discrepancies were exacerbated in the example of an OCS-verified student transcript provided for the team, which recorded the award title as 'BA (Hons) in Business Administration'. Such inconsistencies between the University's record of the academic programmes and the actual provision made by CITY might prove as confusing to potential students and employers as it was to the team and, in the view of the team, pointed to a need for the University to tighten its administrative procedures in relation to the partnership.
Formal arrangements
21 The partnership is governed by a series of formal Agreements, one for each of the programmes (or groups of cognate programmes) offered. The Agreements follow what the Commentary termed 'a fairly consistent format', covering matters such as curriculum and assessment, admissions, monitoring, resource requirements, staffing, and financial arrangements. The Commentary described such Agreements as fundamental to the operation of quality assurance procedures and as a means of expressing the 'mutual obligations' of both partners. In this respect, the team noted that they contained no explicit statement on the locus of responsibility for quality and standards, a matter to which, in the light of QAA's Code, the University may wish to give attention at the time of their next renewal.
22 QAA's Code states that partnership agreements should cover 'the residual obligations to students' in the event that a link is terminated prematurely. The Commentary reported that, 'following difficulties experienced at another partner institution', the University had revised its agreements to include a section on 'Consequence of Termination'. All the CITY Agreements seen by the audit team included this section, having been signed by both partners in either 1999 or 2000. However, the three separate Agreements covering the postgraduate programmes contained apparently conflicting clauses: one which permitted students, in the event of termination, 'to complete their courses subject to the payment of fees', and another which absolved the University of any obligation or responsibility to provide the programme, or any other programme leading to a Sheffield award. The two Agreements for the undergraduate degrees included only the latter absolution. In this sense, and notwithstanding the apparently conflicting statements in the postgraduate Agreements, the University adheres to QAA's Code: its formal documentation makes reference to residual obligations to students. It accepts no such obligations, however, and the Commentary stated that the University has 'no contractual relationship with such students' and that 'although it has a moral obligation to students to ensure the quality of provision and the academic experience, the University's contract is with the partner institution as the awarding body for the programmes delivered'.
23 In discussing this matter with staff, the audit team heard various views on the status of CITY students. Some staff suggested that, in accordance with common practice elsewhere in the sector, students on franchised programmes were students of the University, while those on validated programmes were students of CITY. Others regarded the matter as largely hypothetical given the strength of the University's partnership with CITY. However, from the BCS minutes the team noted that the University had recently terminated summarily a 10-year UK collaborative partnership where it was acknowledged that 'the unique nature of the programme meant that there was nothing comparable within the UK and it would therefore be very difficult for enrolled students to transfer to other British universities to complete their studies'. Although 'substantial concern' for the fate of the students was expressed, validation had ceased and those students had been offered only credit transcripts or intermediate awards. In such a situation, an expression of 'moral obligation' would appear to offer little comfort. The University will wish to reflect on whether its evident 'ownership' of awards offered through a collaborative partner, which includes control of admissions, curriculum, assessment and staffing, is compatible with its lack of 'ownership' of students studying for those awards. It will also wish to consider whether its current approach to residual obligations to students meet standards of good practice in relation to overseas collaborative partnerships. In so doing, it will need to take cognisance of the extent of public interest overseas in the practices of UK institutions working in partnership with local colleges, and its own undoubted status as a prominent UK institution operating in such environments.
24 Reflecting its belief that collaborative programmes achieve 'an equivalence of standards and comparability of quality' to its internal programmes, the University's policy on certification is to issue certificates that are identical to those for internal awards. Thus, contrary to QAA's Code, the certificate neither carries the name of the partner institution, nor signals the existence of an accompanying transcript on which this information is recorded. Also contrary to the Code, responsibility for the preparation of transcripts of student achievement rests with CITY. Such transcripts are produced 'at the student's request to a format agreed with the University', are verified by the appropriate moderator, and 'may then be forwarded to OCS for validation by signature and University stamp'. The sample transcript seen by the audit team (see above, paragraph 20) included the name of CITY (although not its geographical location), had been endorsed by OCS and carried a University seal. There was no written statement indicating that the transcript was invalid without the presence of that seal.
25 The audit team was informed that, while the University was currently reviewing its position on these matters, there was no immediate intention to change its current practices in the light of the Code. The University may wish to reflect further on whether it is confident that its certificates and transcripts cannot mislead stakeholders about the awards offered through collaborative links. In so doing, it may wish to consider in particular whether its current practices protect against the existence of unapproved transcripts over which it has no formal control, particularly given that all transcripts, approved or otherwise, carry the name and crest of the University. Additional security measures might include, for example, making clear that the validity of a transcript is dependent on the presence of the University seal.
26 The Agreements require CITY to seek the approval of the University before the issuing of material bearing the University's name or crest. The Commentary stated that the text of promotional materials was discussed regularly and viewed before publication although it also noted that 'a degree of freedom' had developed based on the level of trust between the partners. In practice, the audit team encountered some uncertainty as to how the University assured itself of the accuracy of publicity, particularly that which was in Greek. A BCS annual review of promotional materials, initiated in 1999 in response to the 1997 quality audit report, involved a sample of six partner institutions including CITY. The team was informed that this exercise had been repeated in 2000 although without the direct involvement of BCS. The matter described in paragraph 19 above notwithstanding, the team found the promotional materials issued by CITY to be accurate.
Quality of learning opportunities and student support
Liaison and administration
27 The primary links in the partnership are created by the appointment of University moderators for each programme. Moderators are appointed by BCS following consultation with the appropriate University department. Their duties are defined in the Handbook and include a general responsibility for ensuring that 'the terms of the validation agreement are respected and that the academic standards expected by the University are upheld': they advise on admissions; approve all staff who teach on programmes leading to the University's awards; and identify nominations for external examiner appointments. As part of their work with CITY, they also review teaching, learning and assessment matters (a role which includes some observation of teaching and sampling of student work), monitor student progress, and hold meetings to elicit feedback from students. The audit team heard that it was not uncommon for moderators to be involved directly in teaching and to lead staff development sessions.
28 The Agreements specify the minimum number of visits to CITY to be made by moderators each year: typically they visit twice, at the time of the meetings of the boards of examiners in February and July, although additional visits may be made during the course of the year. Their work results in the submission of an annual report to the University, using a proforma stipulated in the Handbook. The report is presented to BCS's Teaching Quality Committee and the relevant University department, the former considering it mainly for procedural matters and the latter for academic matters. It is also received by CITY's Quality Assessment Committee (QAC) (see below, paragraph 30). The audit team noted that, while the report proforma was not always followed strictly, the reports were impressive in nature and quality. Generally thorough and detailed, some also contained useful analyses which made a valuable contribution to the University's ability to judge the standards of the CITY programmes. These included a comparison of the degree classes of CITY-based and on-campus students, and an analysis of the relationship between the Apolyterion grades held by students at entry and their final degree classification.
29 The Commentary made clear the University's recognition that 'the success of its collaborative provision relies heavily on the commitment and professionalism of its moderators'. The audit team was able to confirm the confidence expressed by the University in the quality of the moderators' work in relation to CITY. In addition to their formal duties, it was clear that the support and advice they offered to CITY's staff and students were highly valued. The team noted that a Moderators' Forum had recently been re-established by the University to discuss policy matters and encourage the spread of good practice. The team would encourage its continuation as a means by which the University can receive useful advice from those of its staff who have the most direct contact with collaborative partners.
30 The Commentary stated that every validated programme was supported by a board of studies with three scheduled meetings each year and the moderator and student representatives in attendance. The work of such boards is also mentioned in the Handbook and the Agreements. The audit team learnt that, in practice, the boards had been replaced at CITY by weekly 'Academic Boards' for each programme, with the moderators attending those meetings that coincided with their visits. Within CITY's own committee structure, the principal body is QAC which has overall responsibility for quality assurance: it considers the reports of moderators and external examiners, compiles CITY's annual report to the University (see below, paragraph 32), and coordinates the dissemination of good practice. Although this committee structure does not accord exactly with the University's declared framework, the documentary evidence available to the team suggested that it was effective. In particular, QAC appeared to be a capable forum for the oversight of provision at CITY, and the University may wish to consider ways in which its work could be more integrated into the overall stewardship of quality and standards in the link.
31 Administrative links between the University and CITY are managed through OCS, a sub-section of the Teaching and Learning Support Unit. In addition to its role in supporting BCS, OCS's remit is to 'maintain communications with partner institutions' and to ensure that the University's quality assurance practices are 'being applied throughout the growing collegiate system'. It was clear from the papers seen by the audit team that OCS officers also played an important role in visits to assess the viability of new partnerships and programmes. CITY staff emphasised to the team their appreciation of the importance of the link with OCS for administrative matters, as well as general support and advice.
Monitoring and review
32 The University requires its partner institutions to take 'prime responsibility for teaching quality and for maintaining assurance systems that enable them to assess teaching quality'. CITY is required to submit an Annual Review of Teaching Quality following guidelines set out in the Handbook. The report is considered by BCS's Teaching Quality Committee which passes comments back to CITY, together with a note of any action required. This process, which is aligned with the University's practices for internal provision, was introduced in 1999-2000 following a pilot exercise in 1998-99 in which CITY participated. Although a pro forma is supplied for such reviews, the Commentary indicated that partner institutions were encouraged to make full use of their own internal quality assurance procedures as a means of reporting on the continuing rigour and enhancement of academic programmes. The Commentary reported that CITY's two reports to date had raised no matters of concern and had highlighted many aspects of good practice, a judgement that the audit team was able to confirm. The reports were detailed and displayed a commendable level of evaluation: in many senses, they could be considered as exemplary. In discussions with CITY staff, the team heard that the reports were held to be an important instrument in the College's own quality assurance arrangements.
33 The University operates a quinquennial process of review and revalidation of its partner institutions, the procedures for which are contained in the Handbook. The Commentary reported that, following the recent decision not to revalidate programmes at a partner institution in the UK, this revalidation process was under review. As a result, the scheduled review of CITY has been postponed until 2001-02.
34 As a general contribution to monitoring and review, the audit team was informed that student feedback was elicited formally through the use of questionnaires for all modules. The feedback is made available to moderators to inform their own meetings with students. Students who met the team made it clear that they valued their contact with the moderators and were encouraged to express their views on all aspects of their experience at CITY. The team viewed this open communication between the University and CITY students as a commendable aspect of the link.
Staffing and staff development
35 In accordance with QAA's Code, the Agreements stipulate that the University's prior approval is required for all staff delivering the programmes leading to its awards. Such approval is a prescribed duty of the moderators, who are also expected to include details of the research and scholarly activity of CITY staff in their annual reports. This reflects the position of the University that teaching and learning at CITY should be informed by research and scholarship, an aspiration compatible with the large and well-qualified staffing establishment at CITY.
36 The Commentary made particular claims for the significant role played by the University in both staff development and the general management of human resources at CITY. Moderators are expected to become involved in staff development activities and have made presentations on their research or have led research-based seminars. More generally, the University has contributed to the development of a model of human resource evaluation which enabled CITY to restructure its staffing in the context of the key activities of teaching, research, and administration. The extent of the University's involvement in these activities was clear to the audit team from moderators' reports, and from its discussions with staff at both the University and CITY. The University is to be commended for its commitment to staff development as part of the growing maturity of the link.
Provision of information to students
37 The Commentary's analysis of arrangements for the provision of information to students was confined largely to matters relating to students' status in relation to the University. The audit team noted that CITY provided students with informative and detailed handbooks setting out the structure and requirements of their programmes. Information concerning the link with the University is provided primarily through an initial induction programme attended by moderators, who are able to respond to further queries through their periodic meetings with students. Students met by the team were satisfied with the level and nature of the information they received, although in relation to their right to appeal to the University against the decision of a board of examiners - the only area in which the University acknowledges a 'more immediate' formal responsibility towards them - there was uncertainty as to where information was held.
Assurance of the standards of awards
Admissions
38 The Commentary did not discuss entry requirements other than to indicate that admissions matters were covered in the Agreements. For undergraduate programmes, the Agreements specify only that students must meet the minimum requirements set out in the University's Regulations; the General Regulations for Validated Programmes of Study contain no further information. CITY's prospectus is more expansive, specifying the possession of the Apolyterion and evidence of a good IELTS score. For postgraduate programmes, the Agreements also refer to the Regulations which, in this case, do contain the minimum expectations of a good Honours degree in a related discipline; again, a required IELTS score is specified in the prospectus.
39 In accordance with QAA's Code, all Agreements reserve the University's right to approve entrants and stipulate that student details must be forwarded to it prior to the commencement of a programme. The CITY prospectuses also describe a process by which applicants' details are sent to the University for approval. In practice, the audit team heard that, while these processes had been observed for the initial cohorts at CITY, the standard process was now limited to approving borderline cases or those presenting other special circumstances. This pragmatic approach would appear to be appropriate given the maturity of the partner, particularly since admissions practice can be verified through the requirement that statistics and analysis of entry standards are included in the Annual Review of Teaching Quality.
40 In order to provide opportunities for students who, at entry, have an Apolyterion grade or English language score below that required for admission to the University-validated programmes, CITY also offers programmes through what is commonly known as the 'Greek-taught stream'. The use of Greek aside, these programmes are identical to the University-validated undergraduate provision in terms of curriculum and assessment. Students may be considered for transfer to the validated programmes at the end of level 1 or at the end of level 2, subject to the achievement of appropriate grades and a satisfactory IELTS score. In both cases, they transfer to level 2 of the University-validated programmes. Students who do not transfer, and thus complete their studies in the Greek-taught stream, are awarded a CITY Certificate of Studies. The methods used by the University for approving such transfers have evolved over the period of the partnership, but require the approval of the appropriate moderator, on advice from the board of examiners.
41 The existence of the Greek taught-stream was not mentioned in the Commentary - a surprising omission given the large number of students registered upon it and thus its significance in terms of entry with advanced standing. It also appeared to be unfamiliar to some of the senior University staff who met the audit team. The team concluded, nonetheless, that the arrangement offered a valuable opportunity to students who might develop academically or in terms of their ability in English, and welcomed its flexibility as an example of a productive articulation between the University's awards and the other academic work of CITY.
The assessment of students
42 The Commentary did not offer any substantial analysis of assessment arrangements beyond discussing the role of the external examiner. The Agreements include clauses related to assessment which differ according to the status of award, but all assert the University's right to approve matters related to assessment. For the franchised MSc Information Systems and Executive MBA, students are required to undertake the same assessment tasks as all other students registered for these awards irrespective of where they are based. For the validated programmes, examinations and assignments are set by CITY staff and sent to the University for moderation.
43 For validated programmes, boards of examiners are held in Greece and attended by the University moderator and the external examiner (see below, paragraph 44). The Handbook states that moderators chair meetings of the examining boards and, in so doing, 'ensure that course regulations are applied and that the academic standards of the University are upheld'. The audit team heard that, in practice, such boards were chaired by the head of the appropriate department at CITY. In the view of the team, this arrangement had not reduced the effectiveness of the boards to date, nor compromised the role of the moderator, but would require monitoring by the University to ensure that the individual staff involved had sufficient experience to undertake the role. The practice also represented a further example of where the theory of the University's documentation appeared to be tardy in encompassing actual practice (see above, paragraph 30). Similarly, the moderator is not, according to the Handbook, 'an integral part of the assessment procedures' and, although permitted some further involvement in assessment as may be occasionally appropriate, is enjoined not to act as 'a second external examiner'. It was clear from moderators' reports, however, that a more substantial involvement in assessment was not uncommon: in some cases, the reports were dominated by summaries of the outcomes of their second marking and other assessment sampling. Such activities did not appear to conflict with the work of external examiners or threaten the integrity of the assessment process. The University may wish to consider the extent to which its documentation continues to describe accurately the practices used in relation to the link with CITY.
External examiners
44 The University views the external examiner process as 'the principal monitoring tool for the assessment and classification of all taught degrees' leading to its awards; its arrangements for external examiners appointed to collaborative programmes are identical to those for internal programmes. External examiners are approved by the Chair of BCS following nomination by the appropriate University department, and the standard approach in relation to CITY has been to appoint senior academic staff from UK institutions. For all collaborative programmes, the University endeavours to follow the good practice of appointing the same external examiner to cover both on-campus and collaborative delivery. The audit team noted that this practice had been adopted for the MSc Information Systems, but heard that the large student numbers had necessitated the appointment of a separate examiner for the Executive MBA.
45 External examiners' reports are considered by BCS's Teaching Quality Committee and the relevant University department. The comments of both are sent to CITY, where responses are coordinated by QAC. The documentation relating to this process indicated that in general the reports had been considered appropriately; the responses made by CITY were particularly full and thoughtful. The Audit team noted that, in some cases, external examiners' reports were less detailed and helpful than those of the moderators, and that OCS had on occasion written to the external examiners concerned to emphasise the importance of full reports. BCS's Teaching Quality Committee had also remarked that the 'level of involvement of the external examiner varied considerably between courses'. However, as noted above (see above, paragraph 43), the team did not detect any significant conflicts between the work of moderators and external examiners and, in its view, the 'dual' system employed by the University was operating effectively in the setting and maintenance of academic standards. In general, the team was satisfied that the University's arrangements for the assessment of the awards offered through the link were robust. It also noted the common view of University moderators that the very high standard of administration and assessment processing provided by CITY was a model of good practice.
Conclusions
46 The University of Sheffield established its link with CITY Liberal Studies in 1992 and the first collaborative programmes were approved and launched in 1993. Since that time, the partnership has grown considerably with five undergraduate and six postgraduate programmes currently offered to over 500 students. Further developments, particularly at postgraduate level, are under consideration. The link now represents the largest collaborative partnership operated by the University and, in its view, the most successful.
47 The findings of this audit suggest that the University's confidence in the success of its partnership with CITY is justified. The link has been managed through the University's well-established Collegiate Studies structure which has been subject to review in order to ensure that it is able to provide policy advice, to offer a framework for quality assurance and academic standards, and to ensure that collaborative provision does not become detached from the University's mainstream academic activities. The structure has enabled the University to carry out much commendable work in relation to the link. Of particular note has been its detailed assessment of CITY as a potential overseas partner, the work of its moderators (in particular, the highly valued support and advice which they offer to colleagues at CITY), its significant commitment to staff development, the establishment of open communication with students, and the achievement of a valuable articulation between those of its programmes offered by CITY and programmes which are provided independently by CITY. In many of these successes, the University has been assisted in no small measure by the quality and academic maturity of its partner. As the link continues to develop, the University will no doubt be reflecting on ways in which it can continue to recognise and build upon that maturity, to the benefit of both partners.
48 The University has accommodated much of the advice given in QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999). There are, however, several matters to which it is advised to give further consideration. The administrative aspects of the link might be improved in a range of areas: the procedures and guidance issued by BCS, while comprehensive, have not always kept pace with actual practice; there is a need to establish and adhere to a definitive list of the titles of awards offered; and the distinction made by the University between franchised and validated programmes warrants clarification. Aspects of the approval mechanisms for new programmes would also benefit from further consideration, as would the University's current approach to issuing certificates and transcripts, which does not adhere to QAA's Code. Finally, in reflecting on the future of its collaborative provision as a whole, the University is urged to give particular attention to its position on the 'ownership' of students and on the residual obligations which it is willing to assume in the case of the premature termination of a partnership.
49 It is notable that the matters for further consideration summarised in the preceding paragraph are concerned almost exclusively with the administrative and regulatory framework through which the University has chosen to manage its collaborative provision. They are perhaps not matters that affect directly its stewardship of quality and standards, nor do they have a direct bearing on its strong and well-established partnership with CITY. However, they do affect the clarity with which its arrangements may be perceived by external parties and, in the unlikely event that a collaborative link is terminated prematurely, have the potential to affect the reputation of other UK institutions operating overseas.
50 The Commentary produced for the purposes of the audit provided a generally accurate portrait of the link, although it was not always comprehensive in its contents or analysis. The University considers its link with CITY to be, if not entirely representative of its overseas collaborative work more generally, at least illustrative of the good practice that it is seeking to extend to other links. If this is the case, and notwithstanding the concerns expressed above, then the findings of this audit would support a conclusion of confidence in the University's stewardship of quality and standards in its overseas collaborative provision.
Appendix A*
Commentary on the overseas quality audit report supplied by the University of Sheffield
The University of Sheffield welcomes QAA's report and the audit's conclusion of confidence in the University's capacity to safeguard the quality and standards of its overseas collaborative provision. The University is particularly pleased to note the recognition given to the Collegiate Studies structure and the work of the moderators in supporting the collaboration as well as to the strengths of its Affiliate Institution, CITY Liberal Studies.
The University is very aware of the need for the ongoing appraisal of the policies and procedures that apply to this area of activity. As indicated in the report, the University has undertaken a review of the committee structures, membership and procedures of the Board of Collegiate Studies which has strengthened aspects of the framework for the quality assurance and enhancement of the University's collaborative provision.
The University takes seriously its responsibility to protect the interests of students and seeks to undertake all reasonable measures to safeguard the reputation of the University and, therefore, all UK higher education. As noted in the report, the University has a rigorous procedure for assessing all potential partners which includes a detailed evaluation of their financial stability. The University entered into a partnership with CITY Liberal Studies on the basis of the financial strength offered by the Strategakis group. It is within the context of this evaluation process that the clauses contained within the University's formal agreement relating to 'Consequence of Termination' have been applied. Nevertheless, the University is reviewing its position in order to clarify its residual obligations to students in the event of termination of a collaboration.
Further measures being undertaken as part of the current review include:
- an assessment of the extent to which a process of 'phased validation' provides an appropriate basis for developing new provision;
- amendments to the current practice for the issuing of transcripts taking account of QAA's Code of practice and noting the concerns expressed in the report;
- the introduction of a new approval mechanism that includes a requirement that there be external involvement in the approval of all new programmes.
*As supplied by University of Sheffield
Appendix B*
Students registered on programmes leading to University of Sheffield
awards at CITY Liberal Studies
BA (Hons) Business Studies
| Level | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| 1 | 23 | 38 | 46 | 44 | 41 | 45 | 65 |
| 2 | - | 27 | 32 | 44 | 57 | 46 | 60 |
| 3 | - | - | 25 | 30 | 38 | 57 | 46 |
BA (Hons) Computer Science
| Level | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| 1 | 10 | 13 | 13 | 23 | 22 | 25 | 45 |
| 2 | - | 9 | 13 | 19 | 32 | 26 | 26 |
| 3 | - | - | 8 | 13 | 17 | 29 | 25 |
BA (Hons) Psychology
| Level | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 17 | 26 |
| 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15 |
| 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
MBA
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| - | 29 | 17 | 22 | - | - | - |
Executive MBA
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| - | 30 | 22 | 17 | 22 | 31 | 68 |
MSc Computer Science
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| - | 9 | 7 | - | - | - | - |
Other Master's Programmes in Business Administration (Banking and Finance/Logistics Management/Management/Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations)
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| - | - | - | - | 45 | 47 | 104 |
MSc in Information Systems
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 |
| - | - | - | - | 19 | 13 | 22 |
*As supplied by University of Sheffield
Top