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Council's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education (1996) (HEQC's Code), which has now been replaced by QAA's Code.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 Surrey (the University) and Vakalis Foundation GCE (Vakalis) through which the University moderates elements of a one-year foundation programme designed to prepare students for entry to the first year of a degree programme in the UK. The foundation programme as a whole covers a broad range of subjects, of which the University moderates accountancy, biology, chemistry, computing, economics, English, management, mathematics and statistics, and physics. The programme does not lead to a Surrey award and, in the words of the Commentary prepared for the purposes of the audit, 'is not "validated" or "accredited" by the University for any purpose other than to satisfy itself about the academic quality of the programme as a suitable preparation for its own academic programmes'. Students may apply through UCAS to the UK institution of their choice and applications to the University are considered on an individual basis, with no guarantee of acceptance. In a typical year around 20 per cent of Vakalis students include the University in their UCAS choices; the number admitted has ranged from four to 21. Details of student numbers, provided by the University, are attached as appendix A to this report. The foundation programme is taught and assessed in English.
6 Vakalis Foundation GCE, formerly known as Vakalis College of Advanced Education, was established in 1972 in Thessaloniki. It specialises in preparing Greek students for entry to higher education in the UK, initially via A-level programmes offered under the aegis of UK A-level examining boards, and more recently through foundation programmes. According to the Commentary, the latter are designed to give students 'an educational experience comparable in standard with the British A-levels' but tailored more towards the disciplines the students intend to pursue in the UK. Vakalis has formal links with a range of UK institutions in respect of its overall portfolio of foundation programmes and many of them have admitted its students.
7 The audit team members who conducted the UK visit to the University of Surrey were Ms S J Clark, Ms D J Lockton and Mr R P Williams. The members of the team who visited Vakalis were Mr D C Attwood (audit secretary), 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
8 The University's involvement in overseas collaborative provision is relatively limited, comprising a range of joint and distance-learning programmes and a small number of articulation arrangements. The Commentary described the partnership with Vakalis as 'in QAA's terms...an "articulation link"' and 'part of the University's recognised overseas recruitment programme' and its 'EuroCOMPACT Initiative'. The basis of the relationship is 'trust and close liaison between staff of the two institutions' rather than extensive formal procedures: as there is no Surrey award, the link is not governed by the comprehensive regulatory framework for collaborative provision set out in the University's Quality Assurance Handbook: University of Surrey Award-Bearing Taught Programmes Offered by Associated Institutions (January 2000), nor by its detailed Academic Standards Guidelines of 1997. Similarly, while much of the University's collaborative provision falls within the remit of its Federal Board for the Associated Institutions (BAI), a subcommittee of Senate, the link with Vakalis is coordinated through the Educational Liaison Centre (ELC), a central unit responsible primarily for links between the University and local schools, colleges and businesses. These arrangements notwithstanding, it was evident from the Commentary that the University accepted that aspects of the link fell within the parameters of QAA's Code and intended to ensure adherence to the relevant precepts.
9 QAA's quality audit report on Surrey, published in November 2000, commended the University for its 'thorough and systematic arrangements for monitoring and assuring the quality of programmes and the standards of the awards' offered through its associated institutions, but also recommended that the University should review, as a matter of priority, 'the arrangements it has in place to approve and monitor collaboration with partner institutions falling outside the responsibility of BAI', where the procedures could be 'ad hoc' and 'overall strategic guidance' lacking. The current audit team was informed that the University accepted the validity of this recommendation: a collaborative provision working group, established by the Academic Standards Committee to consider a range of issues including QAA's Code, was taking the matter forward. However, University staff emphasised that while they expected the group's work to result in some repositioning of collaborative arrangements and refinements to procedures, there were unlikely to be significant changes to the management of the Vakalis link, which stood 'at one end of a wide spectrum' of relationships.
10 The Commentary provided no statement on how typical the University considered the Vakalis link to be of its procedures and practices in overseas collaborative provision, the majority of which takes a quite different form. The audit team was informed that the link was 'almost unique': although there are similarities with a partnership in Athens also involving a foundation programme, the only other overseas articulation arrangements, all in Malaysia, are based on recognition rather than moderation, and result in entry to the second year of University programmes.
The establishment and management of the link
The approval process
11 The Commentary outlined the development of the partnership. Negotiations were initiated by Vakalis in 1991-92 'with a view to exploring ways in which the University, through the then Educational Liaison and Marketing Office, might advise...on the content and modus operandi for a one-year foundation programme'. Through its membership of CVCP's Greek Education Working Group, the University took 'soundings' on the status of Vakalis and, at Vakalis' invitation, three members of the academic staff made an initial visit in 1992 to scrutinise the proposed curricula and assessment strategies and review the physical and learning resources. The visit resulted in a report to Vakalis on the areas where enhancements might be made, relating in particular to the adequacy of laboratories. 'Immediate steps' were taken by Vakalis in response. As a result, the University agreed to moderate aspects of the foundation programme which was to be tailored for engineering, mathematics and computing science, 'with the option of extending into other subject areas as time progressed'. From its meetings with staff at both the University and Vakalis, it was evident to the audit team that the link had been established on the basis of detailed discussions and a prompt response from Vakalis to the University's recommendations. Only limited documentation relating to the initial visit was available, however, and the team saw no evidence that a formal report of the visit had been received and considered by the University.
12 The Commentary reported that discussions between the University and Vakalis had taken place in 1998, at the latter's request, to explore the possibility of postgraduate collaboration, 'but the outcomes and suggestions were not taken up' by Vakalis.
Formal arrangements
13 The formal basis for the partnership is set out in a statement signed by the University in 1993. The statement confirms that Vakalis is 'a member of the EuroCOMPACT Initiative', sets out the basis upon which individual students may be admitted to Surrey, and specifies the University's 'right to moderate the quality of any course' undertaken by such students. It is not signed by Vakalis. The Commentary acknowledged that the statement, while capturing 'the essence of the relationship accurately', was 'somewhat sparse' when measured against QAA's Code and pre-dated the University's own requirements for memoranda of agreement, as specified in the Academic Standards Guidelines of 1997. The Commentary reported that long-standing agreements such as that with Vakalis would be 'reviewed and restated' when the current review of collaborative provision was complete; a new agreement was expected to be in place by the start of the next academic year. As it takes forward these plans, the University may wish to give particular attention to specifying clearly each partner's responsibilities (and the limits to those responsibilities) and to defining the arrangements to be put in place in the event of termination of the link. In the view of the audit team, such improvements would be in the interests of Vakalis students and would also serve to protect the interests of the University.
14 As the foundation programme does not lead to a University award, the University has no responsibility for the issuing of certificates or transcripts. The Vakalis statements of student achievement seen by the audit team either made no mention of the University, or referred only to Vakalis's membership of the EuroCOMPACT scheme.
15 The 2000 quality audit report drew the University's attention to the advisability of devising procedures for approving and monitoring the consistency and accuracy of publicity materials for collaborative programmes. University staff who met the current audit team acknowledged that no mechanisms were in place for the systematic checking of relevant material relating to Vakalis. The team was informed that a member of the moderating team, who had learnt Greek as a result of his work with Vakalis, checked publicity on his visits to Thessaloniki - a claim that the team was unable to confirm during its own visit. With the exception of the matter detailed below, (see below, paragraph 16) the publicity material seen by the team, in both Greek and English, was accurate. The University will be alert, nonetheless, to the importance of verifying the accuracy of information bearing its name, and will wish to ensure that its response to the 2000 report takes into account the Vakalis link and similar arrangements.
16 Following its initial scrutiny of curricula and assessment schemes, the University's moderation of elements of the foundation programme has taken the form of commenting on draft examination question papers, moderating assessed work, and interviewing students who are applying to Surrey. The University accepts that its involvement in these activities may be a factor in the decision of other UK institutions to accept students from Vakalis. The audit team noted that there had been a steady stream of letters from such institutions, seeking information on the partnership. In all cases, ELC had responded with positive comments about the quality of provision at Vakalis and clear and accurate information about the parameters of the link. The team noted, however, that the Vakalis web site perhaps gave the impression that the University normally interviewed all students, rather than only those applying to Surrey, an ambiguity that the University will no doubt wish to address.
Quality of learning opportunities and student support
Liaison and administration
17 The Commentary stated that 'close liaison' formed the basis of the University's link with Vakalis and that 'close, personal working links' lay 'at the heart of (the University's) confidence' that the partnership was sound. The primary contact point for Vakalis is the Director of ELC, but the moderation work is undertaken by a team of three academic staff from the science departments, to which the majority of Vakalis students are admitted. The moderators visit Vakalis twice a year: in February they interview the students who are applying to the University and report back to the relevant departmental admissions officers at Surrey; in June they moderate examination scripts, conduct further interviews and compile profiles of marks for each Surrey applicant. The moderation of examination question papers takes place by correspondence. Subject areas lying outside the expertise of the moderating team are considered by other members of the University's academic staff as and when the need arises.
18 From discussions and from the documentary evidence available, it was clear to the audit team that the moderators had devoted considerable time and energy to supporting Vakalis, and that their work had been greatly appreciated. There was evidence that the support provided had not been restricted to moderation: for example, a moderator had organised the sale to Vakalis of University scientific equipment that was becoming dated but was still useful for pre-degree work; and the moderators had, on occasion, interviewed Vakalis students on behalf of other UK institutions. It was also apparent, however, that there was no formal specification of their responsibilities, no requirement that they report back to the University on a systematic basis (see below, paragraph 19), and thus no means of monitoring the effectiveness of their work. In effect, the system was operating without reference to standard quality assurance practices. It was also unclear to the team how the activities of ELC more generally fed into the work of the central University committees with quality assurance responsibilities. There is no doubt a challenge in ensuring that the commitment and initiative of individuals is not hampered by the need to comply with potentially cumbersome procedural requirements and in ensuring, in this case, that the scale of such requirements is appropriate to the nature of the activity. The University may wish, nonetheless, to reflect further on whether the current arrangements meet its minimum expectations in respect of quality assurance.
Monitoring and review
19 The Commentary acknowledged that the University had no formal mechanisms for monitoring the link, and had been reliant instead on 'relatively informal methods of oral rather than necessarily written feedback' from moderators, 'such that it is difficult...to demonstrate to a third party the changes that have been made...over time'. The audit team was informed, by both University and Vakalis staff, that the moderators routinely checked on learning resources and specialist facilities during their visits, and students who met the team confirmed that moderators had sought their views on their programmes of study. It appeared to the team that, while the University was justified in basing its confidence in the soundness of the link on the judgement of its experienced moderators, there was no mechanism through which that judgement was routinely sought, recorded and considered. The team would endorse the University's intention, signalled in the Commentary, to address this matter through the current review of collaborative arrangements.
Staffing and staff development
20 The link does not involve any formal commitments, by the University or Vakalis, in respect of staffing and staff development. The audit team was informed that the moderating team saw the CVs of new Vakalis teaching staff, although there was no requirement that these were made available. The University does not undertake staff development activities at Vakalis, beyond the provision of advice to staff on the setting and marking of examinations.
Provision of information to students
21 The Commentary did not analyse the University's practices in respect of the supply of information to Vakalis students, but described the moderating team as providing 'for students who want it' a direct link with the University that enables them 'to make an informed decision about Surrey'. In the UK, the audit team met students who had been admitted to the University from Vakalis; in Thessaloniki, the team spoke to students who had included Surrey in their UCAS choices. The students had met the moderators and all were clear about the nature of the link and understood that successful completion of the foundation programme provided no guarantee of a place at the University; indeed, some of the students in Thessaloniki did not have Surrey as their first choice.
Student progression from Greece to the UK
22 The Commentary outlined the ways in which the University sought to ensure that the progression of students from Greece to the UK was accomplished smoothly. From the inception of the link, the performance of former Vakalis students at Surrey 'has been monitored and tracked informally by the moderating team' and any particular difficulties encountered have been 'fed back to Vakalis through the moderation process'. The University's analysis of student results has indicated that Vakalis students generally perform as well as their peers from the UK and thus has given the University confidence that the foundation programme provides appropriate preparation for its degree programmes. The audit team was informed by staff at Vakalis that, while there was no formal mechanism by which they were informed of changes to the curricula of relevant University programmes, they were confident that the information and feedback received from the moderators was sufficient to enable them to make any necessary adjustments to the curricula of the foundation programme.
23 In terms of student support, Vakalis staff are able to draw upon their extensive knowledge of UK higher education to assist their students in choosing an appropriate degree programme and institution, and to secure a good fit between the educational experience provided in Greece and that offered in the UK. The audit team learnt that the moderators played a continuing role in providing both personal and academic support for former Vakalis students after they had transferred to Surrey. The students who met the team in the UK reported few difficulties with making the transition. They spoke highly of the support provided for them in the UK, particularly from the moderators, and of the English language support that they had received at both Vakalis and the University.
24 It was clear to the audit team that these arrangements were securing the quality of the 'join' between the foundation programme and the University's degree programmes. It was also apparent, however, that they were largely dependent on the dedication of the moderators rather than upon formal procedures: the tracking of students and the valuable statistical analyses, for example, were the initiative of an individual moderator. In the view of the team, a simple formalisation of the arrangements already in place would do much to make the 'join' more demonstrably secure.
Assurance of standards
Admissions
25 The University takes no part in the selection process for admission to the foundation programme; its involvement in admissions is confined to the selection of Vakalis students applying to Surrey. Selection interviews, which include an assessment of English language ability, are conducted by the moderators (see above, paragraph 16) and may result in a conditional offer from the relevant University department. The standard entry requirement is achievement of an overall mark of at least 60 per cent on the foundation programme (the pass mark is 50 per cent), although on the basis of the first interview individual departments may require a student to achieve certain grades for specific components. The Commentary reported that, by mutual agreement between the University and Vakalis, no admissions quotas were specified, although the Department of Chemistry had, in 1994, 'sought to regularise its links with Vakalis' by limiting to 10 the number of students it would admit each year, and specifying the combination of courses required. The students who met the audit team were clear about what they needed to achieve to gain entry to Surrey. The team concluded that the University had put in place arrangements to assure itself, through the admissions process, of the ability of those students to succeed on its degree programmes.
The assessment of students
26 In effect, the standard of the work produced by students, both at Vakalis and after progression to Surrey, is the University's clearest indicator of the effectiveness of the link. The University's primary means of assuring itself of the appropriateness of standards achieved at Vakalis is the moderation process, as described above, (see above, paragraph 17). The evidence available to the audit team indicated that this process was conducted systematically, that the moderation was detailed, and that Vakalis was appreciative of (and benefited from) the results, although there had been an occasion when moderation of a particular subject had not taken place owing to lack of available expertise.
Surrey Open College Federation accreditation
27 The Commentary reported that in 1998, with the encouragement of the University, Vakalis submitted the foundation programme for recognition by the Surrey Open College Federation (SOCF). The intention was to secure credit at the National Open College Network's Level 3, as further evidence of the level and standard of the programme. The resulting moderation by SOCF - which would have been a part of the continuing recognition of the assigned credit - was also seen as providing an additional quality assurance mechanism. Although such recognition was granted following an extensive period of development, Vakalis did not subsequently register its students with SOCF and has not done so to date. Vakalis staff indicated to the audit team that the reason for this decision was that they could see such registration generating extra cost but no extra value, a view accepted by the University.
Conclusions
28 The University of Surrey established its link with Vakalis Foundation GCE in 1992. The basis of the link is the University's moderation of components of a foundation programme provided by Vakalis as preparation for Greek students intending to enter degree programmes in the UK. It is clear that the link has proved mutually beneficial: Vakalis has received regular advice and support from the University's dedicated moderating team and has benefited from the awareness of other UK institutions that elements of its foundation programme are quality assured by Surrey; the University has recruited a steady stream of students from Vakalis, mainly in the sciences and engineering. The students themselves have been able to apply to the UK institution of their choice and have received good preparation for the transition from studying in Greece to studying in the UK; those admitted to Surrey have performed well on its degree programmes.
29 These clear successes notwithstanding, the University is aware that its management of the link has been characterised by informality. Its relationship with Vakalis sits outside the framework through which it manages much of its collaborative provision. As a result, its standard quality assurance procedures have not been applied. The University acknowledges that, while the scale of the link does not warrant the imposition of extensive formal requirements, there are aspects of its current arrangements which might be improved, particularly in the light of QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999). The University is taking these matters forward through a more general review of its collaborative provision. As it does so, it may wish to give particular attention to specifying, through a formal memorandum of agreement, the respective responsibilities of the two institutions, both in relation to each other and, in the event of a premature termination of the link, to students; to tightening its procedures for verifying the accuracy of material bearing its name; and to defining the duties and reporting requirements of its moderators. Such improvements may also serve to clarify for the University the most appropriate location for this link, and other similar arrangements, within its quality assurance structures.
30 The Commentary produced for the purposes of the audit gave a clear description and analysis of the University's link with Vakalis. The findings of this audit confirm the accuracy of that analysis. As the link is not typical of the University's overseas collaborative activities, it is not possible to draw conclusions from this audit about the University's management of those activities more generally.
Appendix A*
Student numbers entering the University of Surrey from Vakalis Foundation
GCE
| Year of Entry | Student Numbers |Degrees Awarded To Date | Other Awards To Date |
| 1994 | 4 | 4 | |
| 1995 | 16 | 14 | 2 |
| 1996 | 21 | 19 | - |
| 1997 | 15 | 11 | - |
| 1998 | 6 | Continuing | - |
| 1999 | 12 | Continuing | - |
| 2000 | 7 | Continuing | - |
*As supplied by University of Surrey
Top