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 the report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between South Bank University and the Fachhochschule Mainz, Germany. The audit examined the policies and procedures used by the University to satisfy itself of the academic quality and standards of its award being offered in Germany. The collaborative programme covered by the partnership was as follows:
MA in Applied European Studies
2 The audit of South Bank University formed part of a series of audits of overseas collaborative provision undertaken in the summer of 1997 and included a visit to the Fachhochschule Mainz. Further information about the audits is contained on the inside front cover of this report.
3 A general description of South Bank University’s mechanisms for the assurance of the quality of its collaborative provision activities is contained in HEQC’s Collaborative Provision audit report published in July 1996. An audit of the University’s overall quality assurance systems had previously been carried out by HEQC, leading to the publication of a report in December 1995.
4 The Council is particularly grateful to the University and to its collaborating partner, the Fachhochschule Mainz, for their assistance and co-operation.
5 Prior to the audit team’s visit to Mainz, the University provided briefing documentation outlining its aims and implementation strategies in relation to the collaborative relationship it has established with the Fachhochschule Mainz. The briefing material was largely drawn from working papers of the University. Following reading of this material and an initial meeting, the team proposed a programme for the visit to Mainz and sought additional contextual documents to aid understanding and verification of the structures and processes of the University’s collaborative quality assurance arrangements. A preliminary visit to the University took place on 29 April 1997 and the team visited Mainz on 26 May 1997. A subsequent visit to the University took place on 11 June 1997. The team comprised Professor MW Bridger, Dr P J A Findlay and Dr L H Roberts, auditors, Ms S Stewart, audit secretary, and Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, for HEQC.
6 During the course of the preliminary visit to the University, representatives of the audit team met senior staff responsible for collaborative programmes and quality assurance, staff teaching on the University-based programme and administrative staff supporting the programme. During the overseas visit to the Fachhochschule Mainz, the team had wide-ranging discussions with senior staff of the institution, staff teaching on the programme, staff involved in the academic administration of the programme, and students currently enrolled on the programme. In preparation for the overseas collaborative audits HEQC had produced explanatory briefing papers (in English and German) explaining the nature of the process and the associated procedures. The team was appreciative of the fact that staff at the Fachhochschule Mainz had received the papers from the University.
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
7 In this report the following abbreviations have been used:
The University:
South Bank University
The Fachhochschule: Fachhochschule Mainz
ASC:
Academic Standards Committee
FASC:
Faculty Academic Standards CommitteeI
PC: International Policy Committee
AES: MA in Applied European Studies
The University and its mission
8 The detailed arrangements adopted by the University for the quality assurance of its collaborative provision activities are described in the earlier audit report on the University (Collaborative Provision Audit Report (July 1996), paragraphs 10 to 19). The University’s current Strategic Plan notes that the institution ‘exists to serve the community, locally and nationally, through its provision of expertise in teaching and research’and that it seeks to equip students ‘with qualifications which will enable them to contribute both to wealth and to the quality of life’. The audit team heard that the progressive development of its international portfolio formed an integral component of its Strategic Plan.
9 In relation to international activities, the University has adopted a cautious approach to the establishment of collaborative linkages. At the time of the preceding audit of its collaborative provision activities, a small number of partnerships, mostly at postgraduate level, existed. Although the audit team learnt that discussions have taken place regarding the opportunities for developing a more extensive collaborative network, the University’s international collaborative portfolio still remains relatively small. Noting the observations made in the previous audit report (see also HEQC quality audit report of South Bank University Collaborative Provision (July 1996), paragraphs 11 to 12), the team learnt from the briefing materials submitted by the University that, anticipating further international developments, additional work has been undertaken to revise the University’s policy and procedural documentation to take account of overseas activities.
The collaborative programme with the Fachhochschule
Mainz
10 The Fachhochschule Mainz operated as a constituent campus of the Fachhochschule des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz until September 1996, when it achieved separate status. At the time of the audit, the Fachhochschule had approximately 4,000 students and offered a range of programmes, mainly in Engineering and Business Studies.
11 The Fachhochschulen in Germany are higher education institutions with a strong reputation for vocational and professional education, committed by their mission to close collaboration with employers and the professions. One distinctive feature of many of the Fachhochschulen is a European element in their programmes, often including language study and the opportunity to study abroad. Fachhochschulen are not currently permitted to offer their own master’s level qualifications within the German framework of awards.
12 The development of the MA in Applied European Studies (AES) programme was grounded in a long standing and broad academic collaboration between the University and the Fachhochschule, dating back to 1976, involving undergraduate student exchanges. A carefully planned marketing campaign for the AES programme undertaken by the Fachhochschule has succeeded in attracting a steady flow of postgraduate students to the institution, and these now include a number of international students from non-German-speaking countries.
13 The AES was first launched by the University in London in a part-time mode in 1988, with the Mainz-based full-time version being offered in 1990. Subsequently, in 1994, a full-time version of the AES was also offered in London; the audit team learnt that the full-time London-based mode had, thus far, recruited relatively small numbers of students. The Mainz-based AES, in contrast, has had intakes of between 17 and 32 students per annum.
14 The Mainz-based AES is structured around an initial semester in Mainz, followed by a short study period in London during the second semester. Students may then to choose either to stay in London or to return to Mainz to complete the dissertation element of the programme. While students on both the London- and Mainz-based programmes study two common modules during the first semester, other elements of the programme vary, partly to enable English language tuition to be given to German students, and, perhaps more significantly, to reflect the academic specialisms of the delivering sites. From its discussions with staff and students, the audit team learnt that the diet of modules for those students on the London-based AES has a strong social science emphasis while in Mainz there is a business studies orientation. The backgrounds of the London- and Mainz-based students accordingly vary, with the former typically having qualifications in business or the social sciences and the latter primarily being business specialists. The London-based AES incorporates a range of optional units, which students select taking into account their individual academic backgrounds, while the Mainz-based AES does not include such optional units (see below, paragraph 33).
Initial approval, validation, monitoring and review
15 The earlier audit report on the University (see HEQC’s quality audit report of South Bank University (December 1995), paragraphs 17 to 18) noted that while the Academic Board had responsibility for policy matters associated with the quality assurance of collaborative teaching and learning provision, responsibility for quality assurance at subject level had been substantially delegated to the University’s schools, reporting through faculty academic standards committees (FASCs). In this regard, the University’s Handbook of Course Quality Assurance, which was produced in 1995, notes that ‘the University’s responsibility for the programme in the partner organisation will normally be exercised by the relevant school in which the validated programme is based’. In describing the University’s current international collaborative operations, senior members of staff acknowledged ‘the need for more debate on strategic matters in an academic context’. Both the initial HEQC audit report and the subsequent audit report of the University’s collaborative provision commented on the diversity of practice between schools (see HEQC quality audit reports South Bank University (December 1995), paragraphs 40 to 41 and South Bank University Collaborative Provision (July 1996), paragraph 37). In response to these observations, the University has established a Collaborative Provision SubCommittee of the Academic Standards Committee (ASC), chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), whose specific remit is to monitor partnership activities. Minutes of the first two meetings of this SubCommittee, which commenced operation in November 1996 were made available to the audit team. The team noted that there was an overlap in membership and an exchange of minutes with the International Policy Committee, which is primarily concerned with overseas recruitment. The team observed the emergence in these minutes of what appeared to be a broader and more systematic overview of collaborative provision activities across the University.
Nature and status of the partnership
16 On its commencement in September 1990, the delivery of the AES in Mainz was covered by a Memorandum of Co-operation which was described as being ‘complementary to the existing agreement of July 1976’. The 1990 Agreement set out a framework in which ‘responsibility for the oversight of academic standards will rest with [the then] South Bank Polytechnic, through the dean of the relevant faculty’with overall ‘responsibility for the maintenance of academic standards [resting jointly with the Polytechnic and the Fachhochschule through its academic structure’. The Memorandum also set out the structure and academic profile of the programme in semesters and module titles. While the Memorandum makes no mention of the academic nature of the collaboration, in the briefing documentation made available to the audit team it was explained that, though the term had not been used when the collaboration began, it would now be regarded by the University as a ‘partial franchise’. The University’s recently produced taxonomy of collaborative provision defines such collaborative programmes as being designed mainly by South Bank staff (whether or not it is an existing programme and whether or not it also runs at South Bank), usually leading to a South Bank award, and wholly or partly delivered at the partner institution.
17 While no period of duration or termination was specified in the original Memorandum, the audit team heard that, shortly before the audit visit, discussions had taken place regarding the formulation of a revised Memorandum between the University and the Fachhochschule. The draft of this document made available to the team appeared to be substantially more comprehensive in its scope than the existing agreement. The revised Memorandum does not detail any major changes to the content, structure or framework for administering the programme. Although Fachhochschule staff advised the team that they were broadly content with the scope and structure of the proposed revised Memorandum, they indicated that they envisaged further discussion regarding matters associated with the academic ownership of the modules offered in Mainz during the first semester (see below, paragraphs 33,36, 43,47 and 51). From its discussions with both University and Fachhochschule staff, the team concluded that the Memorandum of Co-operation had, in general, provided a useful basis of understanding for the operation of the AES programme. In particular, the team noted a developing sense of collaborative academic ownership of the curriculum and its delivery.
Initial approval and validation
18 The Mainz-based version of the AES programme was formally approved at a meeting of the then South Bank Polytechnic’s ASC in January 1990. A submission to the ASC proposing the addition of ‘a German branch to the existing MA in Applied European Studies’noted that the development was consistent not only with the stated objectives of the London-based programme, namely to promote greater familiarity with the European Union, but also formed a logical extension to the expressed policy of the Faculty of Management and Policy Studies to expand links with Europe. It was further noted that the proposal was in harmony with the educational initiatives established through the ERASMUS programme. The proposal document concluded that the initiative was ‘extremely cost-effective since it relies on the expatriation of most teaching and course administration while retaining supervisory control in London’. The proposal also included a number of relatively minor amendments to the existing London-based part-time programme aimed at accommodating the different patterns of attendance and the added element of English language tuition. The minutes of the ASC meeting record approval of the proposal, noting that ‘it might be appropriate for European collaboration to be monitored on a Polytechnic-wide basis.
19 While the proposal involved a number of very significant modifications to the existing AES programme, including a change from part- to full-time delivery and the direct involvement of an overseas partner which, at that time, was relatively unfamiliar with delivering master’s level programmes, the audit team noted that there appeared to have been no separate process of validation or approval for the Mainz-based programme, involving panel scrutiny and external advisors. In particular, the team was unable to determine from the briefing documentation whether the University had undertaken any formal investigation or consideration of the capability of the Fachhochschule to offer the proposed programme elements. While acknowledging that the University had previously established a successful working relationship with the Fachhochschule Mainz at undergraduate level, the team was, nevertheless, somewhat surprised to learn that the University had not considered it necessary to undertake a more thorough and systematic consideration of the academic- and resource-related matters occasioned by the proposal. Drawing specific attention to the close partnership that had been established with the Fachhochschule over a long period of time, University staff acknowledged that the approval mechanisms employed in respect of the Mainz-based AES had not been as robust as the procedures subsequently developed by the University to assure itself of the viability of proposed collaborative relationships (see also HEQC’s quality audit of South Bank University Collaborative Provision (July 1996), paragraphs 14 to 15).
Periodic review and approval of changes to the
programme of study
20 In July 1994, the London-based AES was reviewed for a period of five years, with an interim faculty review after two years. It was at this time that the full-time version of the programme was made available in London. The following year, in a separate process, the Mainz-based programme went through a two stage ‘review and revalidation’, which included the validation of four new units and some minor modifications. This process consisted of a faculty level meeting in March 1995 followed by a University level meeting in May 1995. In its discussions with Fachhochschule staff, the audit team was told that the event convened in Germany in 1995 had constituted the first occasion on which the programme had been subject to a formal review process. The team learnt with interest that the review, which had involved the Fachhochschule in the production of documentation, had been regarded by Fachhochschule staff as a ‘learning process’with respect to the University’s procedural frameworks (see below, paragraphs 51 to 52).
21 Subject to several conditions and recommendations, the Faculty of Management and Policy Studies, and subsequently the University through the ASC, agreed that the Mainz-based programme should be allowed to proceed. On the basis of available briefing documentation, the audit team observed that the University had not appeared to formally satisfy itself that the various conditions and recommendations made during the review process had been satisfied. For example, the team was unable to establish whether a condition requiring the development of ‘an assessment strategy, detailing and justifying the range of assessment used’had been addressed (see below, paragraphs 42 to 43 and 47 to 48). Acknowledging that while the conditions set by these two panels had not been implemented according to the planned timescale and that ‘the documentary [evidence] bears little relation to normal arrangements’, University staff stressed to the team that less formal documentation had been produced which ‘gave some assurance that the matters raised were being addressed, albeit slowly, between the two institutions, and incrementally implemented, but without formal completion of all the conditions set and without a full documentary trail’. Senior University staff recognised the prevailing tendency of staff involved with resolving such matters to secure consensus through largely informal mechanisms. The team was told that the University, as part of its procedural review processes, was, nevertheless, examining the ways in which appropriate elements of its review follow-up processes might be formalised. The team would wish to encourage this activity.
22 Noting that there had been no formal approval visit to the Fachhochschule from outside the sponsoring school when the AES collaboration had been initiated, the University-level review panel stipulated, as a condition of continuing approval, that a visit should be made in the Autumn of 1995 by representatives of the University nominated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). The audit team was told that due to changes in the University’s academic and committee structure, and also a desire on the part of the University to pilot new monitoring mechanisms before partner institutions were required to operate them (see below, paragraph 23), the proposed visit to the Fachhochschule had been postponed. In April 1997, shortly before the audit visit, four senior members of University staff visited the Fachhochschule Mainz in response to the earlier condition of the review panel and a report of this visit was included in the briefing documentation supplied to the team. The report presented a comprehensive and, what the team considered to be, a healthily self-critical overview of the programme, based in part on the outcomes of discussions with students. The report identified a number of matters requiring remedial attention, focusing upon communications; the sharing of assessments between staff of the two institutions; the need for a review of University policy on the language of instruction and assessment; and the ways in which collaborative staff development activities might be fostered (see below, paragraphs 24, 29, 36, 43,47 and 51). While the team considered that the report was likely to play an important part in strengthening the operation of the AES, it was unable, given the very recent origin of this document, to determine the effect it had had on the collaborative arrangement under consideration.
23 The annual monitoring process starts with the production of a report by the London-based Course Director, which is sent to the relevant FASC. The FASC, in turn, produces an overview report which is considered by the ASC. Reports must follow a common University format incorporating information covering all aspects of the organisation and delivery of the programme, including evidence of student feedback and consideration of the external examiner’s report. Documentation made available to the audit team included annual programme monitoring reports for the 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic sessions. Each of these reports, which had been carefully prepared by the University’s London-based Associate Course Director with specific responsibility for the Mainz programme, made extensive use of performance information made available by the Course Director in Mainz. The team noted that the 1995-96 annual monitoring report prepared by staff of the University adopted a substantially different format from preceding annual reports. University staff advised that, partly in response to comments made by the previous audit report (see HEQC’s quality audit of South Bank University Collaborative Provision (July 1996), paragraph 37), the revised structure and format of annual reports deliberately reflected the format of the subject assessment reports presently produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Reflecting the units of provision delineated by HEFCE, programmes are, the team heard, grouped into clusters by the University and reviewed collectively. The team heard with interest that the University has recently introduced a specific form aimed at facilitating the collection of more detailed information than has been undertaken hitherto on the operation of collaborative partnerships.
24 The Course Board minutes made available to the audit team included some reference to the discussion of annual reports (see above, paragraph 23) and the team also learnt that FASCs are required to prepare annual monitoring overview reports. However, the team was slightly less clear as to the means by which information contained within annual reports was brought to the attention of relevant deliberative bodies at University level. In this regard, the team was also unable to determine what formal mechanisms had been employed by the University to provide feedback to those staff and students involved with the AES programme, either based in London or Mainz (see below, paragraph 39). The team noted that both the 1993-94 and 1994-95 monitoring reports for the AES programme had helpfully identified action points and that the subsequent FASC report had drawn attention to items of good practice. Discussions with teaching staff at the Fachhochschule revealed that while they were aware of the University’s requirement for a formal annual monitoring report they had not, thus far, contributed to the preparation of such a document. Neither had they had sight of the resultant University monitoring report or of any feedback subsequently received from the University (see below, paragraphs 33 and 51).
25 From the information available to it, the audit team identified a progressive strengthening of the mechanisms used by the University to monitor the performance of its collaborating partner in Germany. Noting the University’s admission that procedural lapses had occurred in relation to the operation of the Mainz-based AES, the team would wish to encourage the efforts now being made by the University to secure the procedural integrity of the mechanisms it uses to approve, monitor and periodically review collaborative programmes such as that developed with the Fachhochschule Mainz.
26 The Memorandum of Co-operation specifies one management committee, the Course Board. The Board is required to meet at least once in each semester and in each country during the year. The Board membership includes all teaching staff and elected student representatives and is chaired by the Course Director in Mainz. The audit team was provided with minutes of the Course Board in the University’s briefing papers and, from reading the papers and discussion with staff, observed that the Board had explored several issues relating to the operation of the AES programme. The team noted that student representatives had attended the Board (see below, paragraph 39) and that meetings normally had representation from both partners, typically at Course Director level. Teaching staff at the Fachhochschule told the team that they rarely attended the Course Board meetings held in Mainz and were generally unable to attend the London Board. Teaching staff suggested that while they liaised directly with the
Course Director in Mainz regarding any operational matters, in practice they had considerable autonomy in terms of the teaching and assessment strategies adopted with respect to their individual programme units (see below, paragraphs 33 and 43). The team concluded that, in general, the Course Board constituted a potentially useful forum within which programme management matters could be addressed but that, at present, the Board provided few opportunities for teaching staff from Mainz to discuss programme content and structure.
27 The Memorandum of Co-operation also specifies the arrangements for the establishment of an examination board for the programme. The Final Examination Board, which is distinct from that convened for the London-based elements of the programme, is held at the University and is chaired by a senior member of staff. There is no end of first semester board held in Mainz. The membership of the Final Examination Board includes the external examiner and all teaching staff involved with the programme. While noting the regular attendance of the Fachhochschule Course Director at such meetings, the audit team observed that other Fachhochschule staff were rarely in attendance (see below, paragraph 48).
28 The day-to-day operation of the programme at Mainz is the responsibility of a local Course Director who is a member of staff of the Fachhochschule. The Course Director in Mainz is supported by a member of administrative staff, whose duties also include responsibility for aspects of the Fachhochschule’s other international links. The administrative assistant was a graduate of the programme and the audit team heard that the programme had benefited from the resulting understanding of the University’s operational procedures. The administrative assistant had clearly identified links with the University and is responsible for the enrolment of students to the programme, the administrative organisation of the Course Board (including the writing of minutes), forwarding student work to the University and administering any student feedback questionnaires. The Course Director in Mainz takes responsibility for recruitment, induction, co-ordinating the teaching, providing information and records to the University and offering support to the students themselves. At the University, the AES programme has an overall Course Director supported by an Associate Course Director responsible for the Mainz part of the programme. The Course Director in Mainz and the Associate Course Director are responsible for co-ordination between the London- and Mainz-based versions of the programme.
29 The audit team was told by staff of the Fachhochschule that, other than through events such as graduation ceremonies, there was typically little senior or middle management level contact with the University. Indeed, the University was described as being ‘rather remote’This, Fachhochschule staff recognised, was partly attributable to staffing changes at the University. Teaching staff at the Fachhochschule suggested to the team that, although formal systems and procedures might play a part, the effective operation of the programme largely depended on good individual relationships at operational level, based upon a high degree of mutual trust. Noting that they did not receive any feedback on the programme directly from the University, staff indicated that they expected to be made aware by the Course Director in Mainz of any matters that might need their attention. The team accordingly concluded that the effectiveness of the operation of the programme relied heavily on the close working relationships established between staff teaching on the programme at the Fachhochschule, and between the Course Director in Mainz and the Associate Course Director based in London. The enthusiasm and strong commitment demonstrated by these individuals was evident to the team. However, the team was also informed that, more generally, the channels of communication with the University were decidedly less effective, and that more interaction of an operational nature would have helped Fachhochschule staff. The team noted that both the 1995 review and the visit to the Fachhochschule by senior University staff shortly before the audit visit had provided the basis to strengthen operational relationships (see above, paragraph 22). In general, whilst appreciating the excellent working relationships that had been developed at a local level, the team was less sure that the collaborative partnership was consistently underpinned by clear operational systems and procedures and institutional level contacts.
30 The audit team heard that, while the University seeks to maintain an overview of the process through the Associate Course Director, the Course Director in Mainz takes primary responsibility for the recruitment of students onto the Mainz-based AES programme. Following promotion of the programme (see below, paragraph 55), an information day is held in June for prospective students. Students following the programme informed the team that they had particularly valued a presentation given by a member of University staff on that day. While the University is involved in checking any non-standard entry qualifications, acceptance onto the programme is, in all other respects, delegated to Mainz staff acting within the programme’s entry regulations. Students accepted onto the programme are registered from the outset at the University. The team learnt that comprehensive records are maintained at the Fachhochschule and that, as necessary, these are provided to the University. The team noted that all prospective students are interviewed and their English language skills formally assessed. Additionally, while noting the relatively small numbers of such students, the team was told that the German language skills of any non-German national students joining the programme were also assessed. In general, the team concluded that the recruitment process was operating effectively and in accordance with the University’s general regulations and procedures.
31 Upon joining the programme in Mainz, students undertake a short induction. Students told the audit team that they had found the induction event valuable and, as part of the process, had received a copy of the University's Rules and Regulations Handbook, which provides a range of information on academic regulations; appeals and complaints procedures; and student welfare matters. Students further noted that while they had received course based literature, the assessment scheme for the AES programme and reading lists, they could not recall having received a composite student handbook. Guides for several units in the programme were included in the briefing documentation supplied to the team prior to the audit. The team noted that the information contained in the London-based unit guides appeared to be more comprehensive than that given for the Mainz-based units. University staff acknowledged this apparent anomaly and indicated that 'this is one of the features where South Bank hopes further to develop equivalence as part of the process of bringing the two programmes closer together'. Whilst welcoming this intention, the team was nevertheless unclear as to why this particular task, which it regarded as being of some importance, was to be started some seven years after the programme had commenced.
32 Students reported to the audit team that the preparations made for their period of study in London were generally satisfactory and that they had been welcomed by the University. They had received further induction into the London-based part of the AES programme together with assistance in orientating themselves to life in London. Students did note, however, that, apart from the distribution of a listing of possible addresses, they had been given what they considered to be relatively little help in finding accommodation upon arrival in London. The University may wish to consider additional ways of helping Mainz-based students, who are only based in London for a relatively short period of time, find suitable temporary accommodation.
The programme and its delivery
33 University staff told the audit team that the ownership of the Mainz-based
units resided with the University and that these units had 'gone through the
South Bank process'. Staff from Mainz recognised the difference in content of
the streams in Mainz and London, in particular the emphases towards Law and Business
in Mainz and Social Sciences in London (see above, paragraph 14). Likening the
programme structure to a building with two supporting columns (the London- and
Mainz-based variants of the teaching programme respectively) and an overarching
roof (the master's dissertation), Fachhochschule staff considered that the Mainz-based
AES programme had a 'broad comparability' with the London-based version. Teaching
staff further noted that, acting within the broad guideiines of the validated
programme, they had some autonomy in relation to the teaching and assessment
of their individual modules. The team observed that there had apparently been
somewhat limited discussion at Course Board level regarding the possibility of
curriculum divergence (see below, paragraph 43). As noted previously (see above,
paragraphs 23 and 28 to 29), it seemed to the team that effective co-ordination
of the AES programme relied largely upon the enthusiastic dedication of the Course
Director in Mainz and Associate Course Director in London. The University may
wish to review the mechanisms it employs to ensure that the curriculum and
structure of the London- and Mainz-based versions of the AES programme
do not diverge further, to the extent that the aims and objectives of the
separate strands fail to meet the criteria for a single award or support
the common objectives of the collaborative partnership.
34 The audit team heard that another area of divergence of the London- and Mainz-based strands has been the nature of the study period spent by German students in London during the second semester. Students told the team that, although they had been studying the same units as the London-based students, they had, in fact, been taught as an entirely separate group. Students further noted that since they had been taught in a different timetable pattern, the resultant choice of study units had been more limited than their colleagues studying the entire AES programme in London. Fachhochschule staff were aware of this situation and noted that they had expressed their concern regarding this matter for a number of years. Students also indicated that they would have preferred to have been in London for a full semester, to have studied alongside other students and to have had additional options available. The team was told that the University had reacted positively to the views of staff and students and that, with effect from September 1997 the programme would be reorganised so that students from Mainz were able to spend the whole of the second semester in London (see above, paragraph 22). The team considered that this development was one way in which the two strands of the programme could be more closely aligned. Mainz students informed the team that they had noticed a distinct difference in the style of delivery of the programmes, with the teaching style in Germany being somewhat didactic in nature and the London-based elements placing greater emphasis upon self study. While students also reported a heavier workload of classes and assessments in Mainz than in London, they considered that the level of intellectual challenge to be similar in both strands of the programme. In the light of these observations, the University may wish to consider ways of developing a more common understanding of course delivery mechanisms between staff at Mainz and the University (see below, paragraphs 47 and 51).
35 Following the period spent at South Bank, students typically undertake their dissertation in Germany. While Fachhochschule staff told the audit team that they were aware of outline dissertation guidelines to support them in the supervision of dissertations, they considered that the Research Methods Guide produced by the University was more germane to project work carried out in the UK; in Germany, it was suggested, the dissertation ‘has a different focus and operational methodology’. It was clear to the team that there existed the potential for a somewhat different approach to be adopted in relation to project work undertaken in Mainz compared to that carried out in London. The University may accordingly wish to find ways of securing a clearer understanding in its partner institution of the nature and methodology of project work as described in the definitive course description. Students reported to the team that they were well supported in their choice of dissertation and had close and effective contact with their supervisors.
36 From its reading of programme documentation, the audit team was led to understand that the Mainz-based AES programme was taught and assessed largely in German, with the subsequent teaching period in London and the final dissertation being conducted in English. Students are required to pass an intermediate English language course in Mainz and those students whom the team met reported that this tuition had provided them with valuable preparation for their subsequent study period in London. Students indicated that they would welcome more English language tuition. The Course Director in Mainz informed the team that the programme was indeed mainly taught and assessed in German, with a limited number of assessments being in English. In its discussions with Fachhochschule teaching staff, however, it became clear to the team that there was actually a much greater use made of the English language in the Mainz-based AES programme. The team heard, for example, that two units were taught and assessed in English with, it was estimated, some 75 per cent of the associated literature being in English. Other units were taught in German, assessed in English and had large parts of the accompanying literature in English. Noting that successful completion of the programme led to an award of a UK university, both teaching staff and students indicated that they believed that more of the programme should be taught and assessed in English.
37 While noting that the dissertation element of the programme could be written in German if a student chose so to do, and that some students had pursued this option, Fachhochschule teaching staff expressed the view, with some vigour, that students should write the dissertation in English. The audit team noted with interest that teaching staff sought to make allowance in assessment for any difficulties of expression in written English by focusing on content and not on language competence.
38 The audit team noted with interest the ongoing debate within the University in relation to the language of instruction and assessment of those programmes it offers on an international basis. The University’s Handbook on Course Quality Assurance states that ‘an award which is the sole award of South Bank University may be taught in a language other than English, but all assessment which counts towards the award must be in English, except where competence in another language is among the skills to be assessed’. From the information made available to it, it was clear to the team that elements of the AES programme being offered at the Fachhochschule Mainz were being assessed in a way that contravened this policy directive. The University will wish to review carefully and expeditiously the implementation of its stated policy that the language of assessment should be English.
39 The University’s earlier audit report (South Bank University Collaborative Provision Audit Report (July 1996), paragraphs 43 to 45) noted that feedback from students studying on collaborative programmes was achieved formally through joint course boards and through student evaluation questionnaires. Students whom the audit team met noted that while they understood that they could contribute to the discussions of the Course Board, given the size of the student cohort they had many opportunities to raise, on a more informal basis, any concerns they might have regarding, for example, staffing; assignment schedules; teaching and learning; and resources.
40 The audit team noted that while the Fachhochschule does not routinely employ questionnaires to secure feedback on the operation of the AES programme, a small number of teaching staff had, upon their own initiative, elected to use questionnaires periodically. Specimen questionnaires and data analyses derived from these questionnaires were included in the briefing documentation and revealed that, in successive years, students had had a broadly favourable view of the programme, while also drawing attention to some matters that, in their view, could be improved. The team was interested to hear from students that they greatly appreciated the formal opportunity provided through a questionnaire to give feedback on their learning experiences, a mechanism which, students indicated, was relatively unusual in German higher education.
41 The students whom the audit team met stressed their enthusiasm for the programme and the opportunities it provided for personal and career development. They were all aware of their status as students of South Bank University but were less clear as to the full implications of this status. Noting the observations made in the previous audit report (South Bank University Collaborative Provision Audit Report (July 1996), paragraph 47), the team learnt that the students were not aware of the UK Government’s Charter for Higher Education.
Student assessment and academic standards
42 The majority of the units in the AES programme are assessed by means of a combination of coursework assignments and a written examination. Fachhochschule staff informed the audit team that, with reference to the assessment guidelines provided for related modules delivered in London, they had autonomy in the construction and setting of assessments. The team heard that such assessments are not routinely scrutinised by staff at the University or by the external examiner prior to students taking the assessments and that comparison of assessments between teaching staff does not take place, except on an informal and largely infrequent basis (see below, paragraphs 48 and 51). The Fachhochschule, the team was told, is responsible for preparing, copying and administering its own examinations. Drawing attention to the prevailing academic culture, the Course Director in Mainz suggested to the team that it was not considered appropriate for him to compromise the authority of the Fachhochschule’s academic staff to set their own assessments.
43 Fachhochschule staff are responsible for marking student work on their own units. While the Course Director in Mainz told the audit team that he was aware of assessment criteria prepared by the University and that, with a view to securing comparable academic standards, he had seen past examination papers, staff teaching the Mainz-based units suggested that they had not had sight of such material. Noting that the Course Director in Mainz acts as a second marker in relation to assessed coursework and that the Fachhochschule had itself introduced a double marking scheme in relation to the master’s dissertation, the team was told that no mechanism exists at present to enable University staff to moderate student assessed work undertaken in Mainz. However, the team noted with interest that the programme team has developed a proforma for dissertation marking that specifies a breakdown of marks by percentage relating to a number of criteria. Teaching staff whom the team met in Mainz were unsure whether they were required to use the proforma and the University may accordingly wish to consider ways of ensuring consistency in its use. The team noted with interest that, pursuant to the Faculty Review and Revalidation Panel meeting held in March 1995, the senior management review meeting held in May 1995 had commented that ‘a common element in the assessment of each taught unit should be developed as a means of ensuring equivalence between the Mainz and London courses’(see paragraphs 14, 33 to 34 and 47). From the briefing information and its discussions with staff, the team was unable to determine what action had been taken to address this matter and the more general questions raised in relation to the differences between the Mainz- and London-based AES programmes. University staff, stressing the need ‘to secure the wholehearted support of the Fachhochschule for all the proposed changes’, acknowledged that the conditions set by the two panels had not been implemented according to the planned timescale.
44 The University is solely responsible for approving the appointment of external examiners for programmes leading to its awards (see also the HEQC report on South Bank University Collaborative Provision Audit Report (July 1996), paragraph 52). The audit team heard that, until recently, the external examiner had seen a sample of assessed work and lists of marks prepared by the Course Director in Mainz, collated from the marks provided by the teaching staff. The University has recently modified its practices to ensure that the external examiner is now sent all student assessed work for perusal. The external examiner attends the Final Examination Board held at South Bank together with the Course Director from Mainz (see above, paragraph 27). Teaching staff at the Fachhochschule told the team that they had not met the external examiner. Although reassured that the external examiner is bilingual and able to scrutinise assessments written in both German and English, the team was concerned to find that the University appears to depend solely on the external examiner for the verification of comparable academic standards in assessment with no direct input from University staff. Noting the particularly varied range of disciplines covered by the AES programme, the team was also unsure as to whether one external examiner was in a position to be able to provide appropriate advice on the range of disciplines covered (see above, paragraph 42). The University will wish to keep this matter under careful review.
45 The external examiner for the programme is appointed according to standard University procedures and is paid a fee by, and reports annually to, the University. Reports on the assessment process and the comparability of academic standards are required of external examiners by the University and are submitted on a standard proforma. Following central receipt by the University, the external examiners’reports for the AES programme are forwarded to the London-based programme team and to the Course Director in Mainz. The audit team learnt that ‘regular dialogue’took place between the Associate Course Director and the Course Director in Mainz regarding the comments made by the external examiner and that responses to such reports were included in the annual programme report. Teaching staff at Mainz who met the team were, however, unaware of any formal feedback from the external examiner regarding the programme. The external examiners’reports made available to the team gave a critical overview of the academic standards of student work and of various procedural and resource issues.
The student experience of assessment
46 As noted previously (see above, paragraph 34), students studying in Mainz perceived that there was an imbalance in the assessment load in the Mainz- and London-based semesters. More particularly, however, students drew attention to what they considered to be very long delays in receiving feedback from teaching staff on assessed work, and the difficulties that this might present when seeking to complete the final dissertation element of the programme. The University may wish to consider ways of addressing the perceived imbalance in assessment loading and of ensuring that prompt feedback is given on all assessed student work.
47 Earlier sections of this report have commented upon the differences between the London- and Mainz-based AES programmes (see above, paragraphs 14 and 33 to 34). Important issues relating to the verification of academic standards by the University, and the engagement of teaching staff in this process, have been considered previously in relation to the assessment of student work (see paragraphs 43 and 51). The audit team explored in some detail whether, given the acknowledged differences in structure and operational practice, it was entirely appropriate for the London- and Mainz-based programmes to lead to the same University award. In particular, it seemed to the team that matters relating to the comparability of academic standards had not been either formally or informally debated with teaching staff at the Fachhochschule. Reviewing the information made available to it, the team was unable to satisfy itself that the University was yet in a position to assure itself of the comparability of academic standards in the Mainz- and London-based AES programmes.
48 Questions regarding the comparability of academic standards were raised in some detail in the report prepared by senior staff shortly before the overseas audit visit. The audit team noted, in particular, the observation that Mainz-based teaching staff had expressed ‘difficulties in clearly describing the standard required for a pass in an MA’. The report drew attention to a number of systems which might help staff to develop a shared understanding of academic standards. These included, for example; generic criteria set against broad bands of percentage marks; shared marking schemes; making assessed work from the London-based AES programme available to Fachhochschule staff, and increased Fachhochschule staff representation on the Final Examination Board. Noting that the AES programme had been in operation for some seven years, the team would wish to encourage the University actively to follow up these matters.
Staffing and staff development
49 The Fachhochschule is responsible for selecting suitably qualified staff to teach the various elements of the Mainz-based programme. While the University has not specified the mechanisms by which such staff may be recruited to the programme, it appeared to the audit team that, in practice, much reliance is placed on the experience, as set out in a written curriculum vita, of potential teachers. Staff involved with the day-to-day management of the AES programme in both the University and the Fachhochschule suggested that any problems with the competence of teaching staff would be brought to their attention by students directly, if not through student evaluation mechanisms (see above, paragraphs 39 to 40). The curricula vitae of those staff teaching in Mainz are, the team was told by University staff, periodically forwarded to the University for scrutiny and reference.
Staff development
50 As noted previously (see above, paragraph 16), the AES programme
grew out of a student exchange relationship established some 15 years previously
and which involved periodic contact between the academic staff of the two
institutions, In its discussions with staff both in the Fachhochschule
and in the University, the audit team was made aware of several interactions,
especially between those members of staff most centrally concerned with
the programme (see above, paragraph 29). 51 From the briefing papers and
its discussions with staff at the Fachhochschule, the audit team was, however,
made aware of some continuing concerns regarding the level of staff interaction
between London- and Mainz-based staff teaching on the AES programme. In
particular, recognising the ‘essential importance’of securing
comparable academic standards between students studying on the programme
in Germany and m England (see above, paragraph 47), Fachhochschule
teaching staff suggested to the team that they would welcome further opportunities
for dialogue with their colleagues in London. It seemed to the team that
teaching staff at the Fachhochschule had given careful thought to the type
of staff development activities that might usefully take place including,
for example, the exchange of assessed work and the possibility of undertaking
double marking. It was noted that securing equivalence in the marking of
dissertations was a particular area of interest. In addition to the visits
made to Mainz by the Associate Course Director, teaching staff also suggested
that they would welcome the opportunity to visit the University. The team
noted that many of these points had been identified in the 1995-96 programme
annual monitoring report.
52 The audit team met members of the Fachhochschule’s administrative staff associated with the programme in Mainz, and was struck by their commitment. The member of staff who had previously been a student on the programme (see above, paragraph 28) had undertaken two visits to the University (the most recent being some two years previously) and was familiar with the University, its administrative practices relating to the enrolment and registration of students, and the maintenance of documentary records. Although it was evident that some staff development had taken place, administrative staff expressed a wish to participate in appropriate staff development activities and to contribute to the operational enhancement of the programme for which they were responsible in Mainz.
53 Recognising the concerns expressed by teaching and administrative staff at the Fachhochschule, the audit team would wish to encourage the University to explore means by which closer collaboration, possibly involving joint staff development events, might be fostered between staff teaching and administering the programme in the Fachhochschule and in the University.
Publicity, promotional material and certification
54 The earlier audit report on the University (see HEQC audit report South Bank University Collaborative Provision (July 1996), paragraphs 74 to 76), noted that the University’s Marketing Services Unit (recently reorganised as the Communications Office) was developing a more centralised approach to the production of all marketing information, including course and programme leaflets traditionally produced by schools.
55 The audit team read and considered examples of the publicity materials relevant to the AES programme, and discussed these with Mainz-based students and staff of the University and the Fachhochschule. The promotional materials seen by the team, produced in English, German and part English/German, dearly indicated that the final award was that of South Bank University. Students expressed satisfaction regarding the accuracy of the promotional materials they had seen. The team noted, however, that one of the promotional brochures made available to it presented a slightly misleading impression regarding the status of the Memorandum of Co-operation in relation to external quality assurance arrangements in the UK.
56 Contrary to the suggestion made in the earlier audit report regarding the efforts being made by the University to centralise the production of all marketing information, staff in the Fachhochschule advised the audit team that they had accepted responsibility for producing their own promotional materials relating to the programme and had not engaged in any formal process of checking or approval through the University. Staff of the University whom the team met acknowledged that further attention could usefully be given to the processes used by the University to assure itself of the accuracy of the promotional materials produced in relation to its collaborative partnerships. The team would wish to encourage the University to review its procedures in relation to this important matter.
57 Specimen award certificates submitted to the audit team showed clearly that successful students would receive a University award and that the programme had been delivered in conjunction with the Fachhochschule Mainz.
58 From the briefing documentation and its discussions with University staff, the audit team learnt that there might have been a certificate issued to students in Mainz by the Fachhochschule relating to the successful completion of the first semester of the AES programme. It was explained during the visit to Mainz that the Fachhochschule had indeed considered issuing its own certificate at the end of the first semester, but that the idea had not been pursued for technical reasons.
59 South Bank University’s MA in Applied European Studies in Germany has been in operation since 1990. The programme provides opportunities for students wishing to develop a broader understanding of European business and, for those completing the first part of their studies in Germany, the possibility of developing practical English language skills. In offering part of the programme on an international basis, the University’s expressed desire is to ensure that the learning experience received by students in the overseas location is broadly similar to that enjoyed by students studying on the same programme in London. Students spoke positively of their learning experiences and senior staff considered that robust links have been developed between the University and the Fachhochschule Mainz. The audit team noted, in particular, the commitment displayed by teaching staff on the programme and that the views of students appeared to being taken into account in developing and refining the curriculum (see above, paragraphs 29, 39 to 40 and 50). In this latter respect, responding to concerns expressed by students and staff at the Fachhochschule, with effect from the 1997-98 academic session the period spent at the University by Mainz-based students is to be extended to a full semester.
60 The University acknowledged that the processes it had adopted with respect to the initial approval and review of the programme had not been as secure as it would have wished. In particular, not all the conditions set by various review panels had been formally satisfied (see above, paragraph 21). The University advised that actions had now been taken to implement more robust and uniform procedures in relation to the initial validation of collaborative partnerships such as that established with the Fachhochschule Mainz.
61 The audit team explored in some detail the mechanisms employed by the University to assure itself that comparable standards were established, and then maintained, between the Mainz- and London-based variants of the programme. Noting that relatively little dialogue appeared to take place between German and English staff directly involved with teaching on the programme (see above, paragraphs 29 and 51); the freedom given to teaching staff in the Fachhochschule to set and mark their own assessments with little or no reference to their London colleagues (see above, paragraph 42); and the ability of the external examiner to provide appropriate guidance across a broad curriculum (see above, paragraph 44), the team considered that the University is not yet in a position to be able to satisfy itself of the comparability of standards between the Mainz- and London-based elements of the programme. Programme components studied by students in London and Mainz during the first semester can vary quite considerably and the team was unable to satisfy itself that students were, in fact, studying on similar programmes. The absence of close working relationships between teaching staff on the programme reinforced this view. The University has only recently begun to address these important matters (see above, paragraph 22).
62 Noting the particular English language demands placed upon those students based in Mainz, the audit team heard of the commitment and enthusiasm exhibited by German students to develop their English language skills (see above, paragraphs 36 to 38). Despite the complexities of communicating in a foreign language, both orally and in writing, it appeared that Mainz-based students did not receive any recognition of the demands placed upon them, over and above those placed upon students studying the entire programme in English in London. The University will wish to reflect on whether it might be appropriate to recognise the additional language competence demands placed upon Mainz-based students.
63 The visit made to the Fachhochschule by senior University staff shortly before the audit visit has helpfully begun to address many of the issues identified in this report (see above, paragraph 22). The audit team would wish to encourage the University to actively pursue the developmental agenda it has already established for itself.
Top