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 of 2001, QAA audited selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Hong Kong. The purpose of the audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions are maintaining academic standards and quality of education in their partnerships with institutions in Hong Kong.
The process of audit of overseas partnership links
2 In planning these audits of overseas collaborative provision, QAA invited all UK institutions to provide a list of their collaborative links with partners in Hong Kong. On the basis of the information provided on the range and scale of the links, computing and information technology was selected as the subject focus for the audit. Each of the UK institutions whose collaborative link had been selected for the audit provided for QAA a Commentary describing the way the partnership operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which the UK institution assured quality and standards in the link. In addition, 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 or specific to this link, subject or country. QAA identified four UK institutions which had established arrangements where most or all of the educational provision was delivered through a partner in Hong Kong, and these institutions were visited by small teams of auditors to discuss the arrangements with appropriate staff and to look at relevant documentation.
3 Audit teams visited the partner in Hong Kong 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 Hong Kong, further documentation about the link was made available to the team, and discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. In addition, members of the team, who included subject specialists in computing and information technology, were able to see facilities and resources available to the students. Examples of students' work were seen by members of the team, including the subject specialists, either in Hong Kong or in the UK. QAA is grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Hong Kong for the willing cooperation provided to the team.
4 Institutions were invited, in their Commentaries, to make reference to the way in which their arrangements met the precepts of QAA's Code of practice on 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 all collaborative provision, and it is expected that institutions would be adhering to the precepts of the Code. In the context of these audits, the Code was used as a reference point by the audit team, and its contents are reflected in the observations in this report.
The context of collaborative provision with partners in Hong Kong
5 Under Hong Kong legislation introduced in 1997, all courses conducted in Hong Kong leading to the award of non-local higher academic or professional qualifications have to be registered or exempted. This means that all programmes offered by UK institutions in partnership with institutions in Hong Kong have to be registered or exempted. The criteria for the registration of a course includes the requirement that there are effective measures in place to maintain the standard of the course at a comparable level with that of a similar course conducted in the home country. Those courses that are conducted in collaboration with a local institution of higher education may be exempted from registration. Registration is approved by the Registrar of non-local higher and professional education courses, and the decision is based on advice from the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA). Registration or exemption does not mean that the course is also recognised by HKCAA or employers in Hong Kong. Courses which are considered to be 'purely distance learning' are excluded from the registration requirement.
The collaborative link between University of Central England and Informatics,
Hong Kong
6 The collaborative provision considered in this report relates to a programme of study delivered through Informatics, Hong Kong, leading to the award of BSc (Honours) Business Information Technology of the University of Central England. The collaborative provision in Hong Kong is delivered through the Wanchai Centre of Informatics, Hong Kong. Informatics, Hong Kong, is itself the territorial headquarters of Informatics Holdings Limited, and its office is located in Tsimshatsui, Kowloon. Informatics Holdings is a private education provider whose headquarters are located in Singapore. It was established in 1983, and has over 300 delivery centres in 32 countries. The programme in Hong Kong is registered with HKCAA. The language of instruction and assessment is English.
7 An audit team comprising Dr D J Buckingham, Dr D H Furneaux, Dr P D Hartley and Dr G A Stoy visited the University of Central England on 22-23 January 2001. The team held two formal meetings during the visit, the first with University staff centrally responsible for academic quality matters and the second with staff responsible for managing the academic and programme aspects of the link. The team also had a demonstration of the online system of support for both academic and administrative matters (SCAN). Additional supporting material was made available to the team in a base room.
8 The visit to Informatics, Hong Kong, took place on 19 March 2001. The
audit team comprised Dr D J Buckingham, Professor R S Burgess, Mrs N J
Channon, Dr P D Hartley and Professor B S Lee. The team visited the Territorial
Corporate Office of Informatics, Hong Kong, and the Wanchai delivery centre.
Meetings were held with senior staff of Informatics, Hong Kong, and an
Executive Director of Informatics Holdings, and also with the Centre Manager
and Course Leader, other teaching and support staff, and students. The
team had access to further documentation, and toured the premises at the
Territorial Corporate Office and the Wanchai Centre to see library and
IT provision.
Background
9 The collaborative link under consideration is the final year (level 3) of one of the routes through the University's Computer Science and Information Management Scheme (CSIM) leading to the award of BSc (Honours) Business Information Technology. The delivery in Hong Kong allows students to join the CSIM scheme with 120 credits at level 1, and 120 credits at level 2, to study level 3 modules. The majority of students entering the level 3 course have gained their credits at levels 1 and 2 from Informatics own diploma programmes, leading to the awards of Diploma in Computer Studies (DCS) and Advanced Diploma in Computer Studies (ADCS). Students are able to complete their programme in Hong Kong, although they still have the option to transfer to the University of Central England. There are no optional modules available to students following the course in Hong Kong. The delivery of the course in Hong Kong began in 1999.
10 The University has an international policy governing collaboration with overseas institutions. This policy states criteria which have to be used by faculties and central committees for the consideration and approval of overseas collaborative arrangements. In its Commentary the University stated that in developing its collaborative arrangements with overseas institutions it wished to 'enhance its international profile but to do so without risk to its reputation or the quality of its awards'. The University's processes require the location of delivery to be approved by Senate.
11 The original relationship between Informatics Holdings and the University dates from 1985. This relationship was well-established when the University considered approval of delivery of the level 3 programme through five Informatics centres. Approval to deliver the franchise through the Singapore centre was given in 1996, the Hong Kong centre was approved in 1998 for delivery of the franchise in 1999, and a further three centres in the region were approved in 2000 for delivery of the franchise in 2001. Delivery at all Informatics centres is coordinated through the headquarters of Informatics Holdings in Singapore. Students taking the programme at an Informatics centre are registered as students of both the University and Informatics. The audit team in Hong Kong met an Executive Director of Informatics Holdings, who gave the team an introduction to Informatics Holdings' operations and approach to quality assurance, with particular reference to the delivery centre in Hong Kong.
12 The University has only two partnerships whereby its awards are delivered
overseas, Informatics Holdings Limited and another partner, also based
in Singapore which supports provision in art and design. In its Commentary,
the University compares the two overseas partnerships and concludes that
the partnership arrangements are similar.
Formal arrangements
13 An Academic Memorandum of Cooperation setting out the arrangements under which Informatics Holdings was approved to deliver the level 3 course in Hong Kong was signed in March 1999. Drafts of an Academic Agreement and Collateral Agreement were available to the audit team, and were awaiting approval at the time of the audit visit. The University subsequently informed QAA that the draft Academic Agreement was approved without amendment and was signed on 8 February 2001, and that the draft Collateral Agreement was also approved without amendment and was signed on 23 March 2001. The Academic Agreement between the University and Informatics, Hong Kong, 'sets out the arrangements under which the University agrees to collaborate with Informatics, Hong Kong', and refers to the collaboration as a franchise. The Collateral Agreement between the University and Informatics Holdings Limited is supplemental to the Academic Agreement and sets out the obligations of Informatics Holdings to ensure that Informatics, Hong Kong, and the individual approved delivery centre(s) in Hong Kong 'shall comply with their respective obligations under the Academic Agreement'.
14 The University has adopted a policy that the approval of collaborative provision shall be considered by a panel at University level with final approval given by Senate. This was implemented in the case of the approval of Informatics, Hong Kong, to offer the level 3 programme. Following the approval event at Informatics Yaumatei centre in Hong Kong, the Tsimshatsui and Wanchai centres were visited by one of the external subject specialists on the approval panel in order to confirm that these centres were 'appropriately equipped for delivery of the ADCS'. The audit team was able to confirm that this link and programme had been approved in accordance with the University's published procedures.
15 The Memorandum of Cooperation and the Academic Agreement make clear that it is the responsibility of the University to print and issue award certificates and transcripts. The University conforms to QAA's Code of practice on collaborative provision in relation to the precepts relating to certificates and transcripts, in that information on the location of delivery is carried on the transcript.
16 The Memorandum of Cooperation with Informatics Holdings is in accordance with QAA's Code of practice on collaborative provision, and states that all publicity material referring to the University must first be approved by the University before publication, as does the Academic Agreement. The audit team learnt from its meetings in Hong Kong that this was well-understood by Informatics Holdings, but it was recognised that problems might arise inadvertently at centre level where, for example, the University logo might be associated with material distributed through the web site. The University is aware of the need to be particularly vigilant in the case of web-based distribution of material, and has demonstrated its ability to take action to have incorrect material removed.
17 In its Commentary, the University described its policies, procedures
and information relating to the selection and approval of new overseas
partnerships and the use of agents. It claimed adherence through these
to QAA's Code of practice on collaborative provision, and identified
compliance with particular precepts within the Commentary. From
its study of the documentation, and discussions with University staff,
the audit team formed the view that the University's arrangements for collaborative
provision were compliant with the Code.
Responsibilities for quality and standards
18 The Academic Agreement made clear that responsibility for the maintenance of academic standards and oversight of the quality assurance procedures was vested in the Senate of the University, and that 'the Chief Executive of Informatics, Hong Kong, shall be responsible to the Senate for the effective discharge of the responsibilities laid upon Informatics, Hong Kong, and its Centre(s)'. In practice, Informatics, Hong Kong, has reporting lines both to Informatics Holdings and to the University. In some matters of assessment (see below, paragraph 46), Informatics, Singapore, is also an active participant in the quality assurance loop between Informatics, Hong Kong, and the University. There are therefore multiple, sometimes parallel, lines of communication in this partnership link which, in the view of the audit team, have the potential to create gaps in the University's direct control of the quality and standards in the link. The University is aware of this, and has been working to achieve greater understanding of the respective roles of the participants, both through formal arrangements, as in the Academic Agreement, and through less formal action as in staff development visits made by University staff to Informatics centres. Nevertheless, the University will need to continue to be vigilant in making sure that devolved responsibilities, and reporting lines, allow it to be sure that it has overall control of the management of quality and standards of the Informatics level 3 course, particularly when the further three centres begin delivery.
19 The audit team noted that the Academic Agreement required Informatics, Hong Kong, to ensure that its centre(s) complied with QAA's Code of practice, and any 'benchmarking information recognised within the UK, and the level descriptors published in the National Qualifications Framework for England when these are implemented by the University'. The team took the view that these are responsibilities that should fall to the University in its position as the degree awarding body, not to the partner organisation.
Quality of learning opportunities and student support
Liaison and operation of the link
20 The University's Commentary confirmed that the responsibility of Senate for the maintenance of academic standards and oversight of the quality assurance procedures 'is exercised through a clear committee structure whereby the Faculty Board, and the board of studies and examination board for the CSIM scheme play key roles'. In respect of the maintenance of quality and standards in the link, the key level in the University's organisational structure is the Faculty; relevant committees are the Faculty Academic Quality Committee (FAQC) and the Faculty International Strategy Committee. In practice, much of the managerial responsibility for the conduct of this partnership link with Informatics Holdings and Informatics, Hong Kong, rests with the Dean of the Faculty. The University has also introduced at faculty level the post of International Development Manager responsible for day-to-day management of the link.
21 In Hong Kong, the Course Leader at Informatics, Hong Kong, is responsible for liaison with the University. It was originally envisaged that the Centre Manager should also act as the Course Leader, and the Faculty had expressed concern at the combined workload. In Hong Kong the audit team found that the roles of Centre Manager and Course Leader had now been divided, with a new Course Leader, appointed from the existing course teaching staff, having been put into post some five months before the audit visit. This allowed the Centre Manager to focus exclusively on his overall managerial role, without the additional burden of course leadership. It was evident from discussions with students, however, that they did not know of the change in roles. There was also some lack of clarity on the part of staff at the delivery centre as to the demarcation of responsibilities between the Course Leader and the Centre Manager. The University will wish to ensure that their respective roles are made clear to staff and students in Hong Kong, and to the relevant members of the University.
22 The Memorandum of Cooperation and the Academic Agreement require Informatics
Holdings to establish a Course Board of Studies which will act as a sub-board
of the main Board of Studies for the CSIM scheme at the University. The
respective responsibilities, terms of reference and composition of the
sub-boards and the main Board are given in the Faculty's Operations
Manual. The sub-Board of Studies is chaired by the Centre Manager,
and includes staff and student representatives from the course as well
as a representative from the University's main Board.
Monitoring and review
23 Annual monitoring of the programme is conducted at faculty level in accordance with the University's procedures. It is carried out through the CSIM Board of Studies which makes a report to the FAQC. There is a separate requirement that a section of this report should cover overseas collaborative arrangements. A report to Senate in February 2001 on the outcomes of the monitoring of overseas franchise provision was produced by the University's Academic Quality and Support Department. The University's Committee for Academic Regulations and Policy (CARP) has a working group considering the regulations and procedures relating to overseas collaborative provision. The audit team learnt that the University intended to introduce a new committee - the Collaborative Partnerships Committee - during 2002. This will be a sub-committee of Senate, and its remit will include the monitoring of collaborative provision.
24 The University acknowledged that it had had some difficulty obtaining reports from the Informatics, Hong Kong, sub-Board on time, and has taken action to improve the administrative liaison. The audit team noted that reporting has improved and that the most recent report was submitted well within the deadline. From its discussions in Hong Kong, it appeared to the team that staff and students were aware of the existence and significance of the sub-Board, and of their own roles with regard to that Board.
25 A key element of annual quality monitoring is the student evaluation questionnaire. Informatics has its own student evaluation forms which are used across its centres. The 1999-2000 annual report from the Hong Kong Course Leader showed a number of matters related to staff and teaching which had been raised by the students in their evaluation forms, but it was not clear to the audit team, either from the available documentation, or from discussions with staff, what feedback and corrective action had been taken. The team heard from University staff that the University was working on better integration with its internal scheme, and CARP has devised a new standard reporting format for annual monitoring which will be in use to report on the outcomes of 2000-01. In the process of seeking that greater integration, the University might consider the merit of a more systematic communication of views between staff of the Wanchai Centre and of the University's CSIM scheme on the evaluation and enhancement of the Hong Kong and UK courses.
26 The Operations Manual sets out the processes for collecting and responding
to student feedback. Students at the Wanchai Centre expressed to the audit
team their view that they had opportunity for feedback on the course and
on the quality of teaching. However, they were unclear about the precise
processes and procedures governing their feedback, and about any subsequent
actions taken. Action had clearly been taken, in the case of persistent
and serious negative feedback from students with regard to one member of
staff, as a result of which his contract had been terminated. The team
was, however, unable to form a clear view of what feedback and quality
control processes were under way at Informatics, Hong Kong, to address
less serious matters, and to ensure that appropriate lessons are drawn
from the ongoing monitoring process.
Curriculum
27 The University, in its Commentary, stated that 'the programme offered at Informatics, Hong Kong, matches level 3 of the UCE programme in structure and content but its delivery differs in four respects'. Those four differences were identified by the University as:
- the programme at the University is offered over two semesters per year; in Hong Kong it is offered over three trimesters per year;
- the programme is offered in full-time and part-time mode at the University; at Informatics, Hong Kong, it is only offered part-time at the moment although the Centre has approval for delivery in full- or part-time modes;
- there are fewer options available to students in Hong Kong (the University subsequently informed QAA that there are no longer any options available to students in Hong Kong);
- case studies are adapted for Hong Kong.
28 Teaching materials for each module in the CSIM scheme are delivered
in an electronic format and delivered in Hong Kong by teaching staff employed
by Informatics, Hong Kong. The content of the modules delivered in Hong
Kong is therefore the same as that delivered at the University.
Learning resources
29 The online system through which the University makes teaching and learning resources available to Informatics, Hong Kong, is known as the SCAN system (School of Computing Asynchronous Network). The University places considerable reliance on the SCAN system to carry all the academic and administrative support materials. The system holds the learning outcomes, syllabuses, and teaching and learning materials for each module in the CSIM scheme. It contains academic databases for exchanging information of project proposals and feedback, and information and guidance on good practice in approaches to teaching and learning. It also contains databases that provide administrative information on procedures, regulations, schedules and calendars of events, and details of staff contacts. The University commented that the system 'provides comprehensive electronic support for both academic and administrative matters'. The audit team sampled the SCAN system at the University and at Informatics Wanchai centre, and agreed that the system was comprehensive and likely to support the University's claim that it was 'a most useful tool in the delivery and management of the programme'. The SCAN system gives the University a good measure of control over the content and delivery of the provision, although day-to-day control of the quality of the delivery lies to a significant extent in the hands of the teaching staff engaged by Informatics, Hong Kong.
30 It was evident to the audit team that the teaching staff at the Wanchai centre were making effective use of the SCAN system in order to prepare and deliver their teaching and to support student learning. There was, however, some local uncertainty as to whether SCAN was intended purely as a staff resource, or as a database to which students would also have access. Students who met the team in Hong Kong expressed a wish to be able to consult SCAN material directly. One page of the web site set up by the Course Leader at the Wanchai centre indicated that it was intended as a means of communication between staff and students. The staff at the Wanchai Centre indicated that they believed that, initially, SCAN material had been available to students at centres in Singapore but this was no longer the case. The University subsequently informed QAA that the web site that had been established at the Wanchai centre was not part of the University's system, and that the system set up by the University is currently only available to staff. It would be helpful to Hong Kong staff and students if the University clarifies to all parties the intended uses of, and access to, the SCAN system.
31 Informatics Wanchai Centre has a 22-workstation computer laboratory equipped with modern machines and standard software. Technical support of a general nature is available. From its discussions with staff and students, the audit team gained the impression that students tended, however, to work at home rather than in the Centre. Most of the students are in full-time employment, and all of them are following the programme on a part-time basis, so their preference is to restrict time spent in the Wanchai Centre to class attendance and to use the computing facilities available to them at home or at their workplace.
32 Informatics, Hong Kong, is responsible for making available to the students a set of texts at two centres, the Wanchai Centre and the Tsimshatsui Centre where the Territorial Headquarters is located. These texts comprise mainly reference works and some of the module core texts. The audit team was told in discussion with staff that the University has the ultimate responsibility for determining the resources to be deployed to support the programme.
33 The library at the Wanchai Centre contains reference works and core texts, which the audit team noted were relatively new and had been little used. The team was told that the general expectation was that students would purchase their own books, and make use of other libraries and university libraries in Hong Kong. The team was interested to note that students at the Wanchai centre have access to a number of online journals through the University's library digital resources. Password-controlled access to this can be available either from workstations in the Centre or from students' own machines at home via a modem. The University will wish to continue to monitor the learning resources at the Wanchai Centre to ensure that students have reasonable access to materials appropriate to support honours-level studies.
34 Students who met the audit team in Hong Kong expressed satisfaction
with the teaching and learning support that was available to them, although
they felt that some of the reading lists were dated and they expressed
the view that they would have preferred more course content relating to
e-commerce.
Projects
35 At the Wanchai Centre the one (part-time) project supervisor for all of the students on the programme has set up a web site to give the students advice on the preparation for, and writing of, their projects. The audit team considered that this web site, containing some material adapted from that available from SCAN, gave students useful information and guidance on project work. Project topics are selected by students, frequently relating to their field of employment, and are approved by the Course Leader. From its reading of the available documentation and web pages, and from discussions with staff and students in Hong Kong, the team formed the view that the process of project management was effective. The University's project guidelines require students 'to have regular meetings with both their first supervisor and their supervisory team'. Students confirmed that they were able to contact the project supervisor readily by email, and to have occasional meetings with him to discuss progress with their projects, although they considered such meetings to be optional rather than obligatory. The University might consider the merit of ensuring that students undertaking an honours-level project have scheduled meetings with their supervisor, as required in its project guidelines, and of finding ways to implement this.
36 In terms of specialist project support the situation was less clear.
It was obvious that no one project supervisor can realistically give appropriate
specialist support to all the students, and the supervisor therefore expects
to call on input from colleagues at the Wanchai Centre. When the audit
team raised the matter of specialist support in the project with students
in Hong Kong, they reported that they frequently relied on other, outside
sources, for such support. One student commented that, for specialist project
support and advice, he would be more likely to 'ask a friend' than approach
a member of staff for help, recognising that the part-time teaching staff
were themselves very busy. Because the students on the programme are for
the most part employed in the business or IT sectors, these ad hoc arrangements
for specialist support with their projects might be adequate, but they
do not assure an appropriate level of guidance and specialist support in
the development of an honours-level project. The University might wish
to consider how it can implement a more structured approach to project
support and supervision, so as to ensure that students have timely access
to appropriate specialist expertise.
Staffing and staff development
37 Staff are recruited and employed by Informatics, Hong Kong, and are all part-time staff on permanent contracts. The formal position as stated in the Commentary is that 'the CV of each member of staff has to be approved on behalf of the Faculty before he or she can teach on the programme'. The audit team noted, however, in its discussions in Hong Kong, that staff had been appointed to teach on the programme before their CV was seen (and approved) by the University. While this has not been a problem to date, it would be if a member of staff proved to be unacceptable to the University after their appointment had commenced. The Academic Agreement makes explicit the expectation that teaching staff at Informatics, Hong Kong, should have qualifications and experience that compare with those of teaching staff at the University. The team noted that research activity is not one of the criteria for appointment, raising a question whether the University can be sure that a member of Informatics staff is sufficiently experienced to make an appropriate academic input at honours level. The University might wish to reflect upon how it might in future be fully confident that all teaching staff appointed by Informatics, Hong Kong, to teach this level 3 course have the appropriate skills and experience.
38 The University's Senate has resolved that an induction programme should be held to familiarise staff employed by Informatics 'with the objectives of the programme and its organisational and operational arrangements'. The first induction session was held in Singapore in September 2000, and one member of staff from Informatics, Hong Kong, was able to join staff attending from other centres.
39 The Academic Agreement states that Informatics, Hong Kong, will be responsible 'for the provision of staff development for Centre staff'. The Commentary explained that 'staff development workshops have been provided by the Faculty' and that 'they were very successful and will become a regular feature'. The workshops included aspects of supervision and feedback on projects and also the delivery of classes and lectures, but they were delivered in Singapore, and Hong Kong staff were unable to attend. The Commentary explained that 'the location of the delivery of the workshops will be rotated from centre to centre', and the University subsequently informed QAA that staff development workshops have been held in Hong Kong.
40 The audit team was informed by both staff and students at the Wanchai
Centre that, particularly during the last year, frequent visits had been
made by University staff to Informatics Hong Kong. These have been used
for a number of purposes, including giving advice to teaching staff on
delivery of materials, some observation of teaching, and some teaching
direct to Hong Kong students. Students had noted in their feedback questionnaires
a number of problems relating to certain local lecturers' presentational
skills, and the visits by University staff had subsequently been used to
provide staff development in this area. The team did not, however, see
evidence of the University having a systematic plan or a structured overall
strategy toward the development of teaching staff in Hong Kong. Nor was
it clear how the University intended to link the staff development that
it provides with that provided by Informatics, Hong Kong, under the terms
of the Academic Agreement. The University might wish to consider how a
structured approach to targeted visits by University staff might link with
the staff development plans of Informatics, Hong Kong, to provide more
effective development and support for the part-time Informatics staff who
deliver the level 3 course. Overall, students who met the audit team stated
that they were very satisfied with the quality of the teaching support
they received from Hong Kong staff. This was borne out by the feedback
questionnaires which were available to the audit team.
Information for students
41 The regulations of the University require that a student handbook is provided for all programmes, and the audit team saw the handbook for the Informatics, Hong Kong, level 3 Business and Information Technology Route of the CSIM Degree Scheme. The handbook contains details of relevant University regulations, and the Commentary stated that a full copy of the University's regulations was held in the library at Informatics, Hong Kong. This was confirmed by the team in Hong Kong.
42 Students on the programme are subject to the University's rules, regulations and policies, including those in relation to assessment and examination, and the draft Academic Agreement states that 'the Centre shall be required to implement the procedures established by the University in respect of these matters'. The Academic Agreement confirms that if a student appeals in respect of the conduct of assessment the adjudication takes place under the auspices of the University's Representations Committee, and that the 'Centre shall supply such evidence as shall be reasonably required'. It was evident to the audit team in discussion with students that they knew how and where to access information with regard to course regulations, and how to access the academic appeals procedures.
Assurance of the standards of awards
43 In its Commentary, the University gave two main reasons why it claimed equivalence between the academic standards of awards gained by students at the University and students at Informatics, Hong Kong. The first was that the CSIM Examination Board considered and determined the results of students on the programmes at the University together with students who have studied the level 3 course at Informatics, Hong Kong, and Informatics, Singapore. The CSIM Examination Board is responsible to Senate for the maintenance of standards in the CSIM scheme. Teaching staff of Informatics centres are entitled to attend meetings of the Board, although no staff of Informatics, Hong Kong, have yet been able to attend. The second reason given for the equivalence of standards was that all marked assignments and examination scripts were sent to the University where they were subject to moderation by the module tutor, and were available to the external examiners for inspection.
44 From its reading of the documentation available to it, the audit team
supported the University's view of equivalence of the standards of the
award. Confidence in the standards of the awards gained by Informatics
students is secured by the Examination Board and external examiners being
common to all cohorts of students, and by the University's control of assessment
through moderation.
Entry requirements
45 The normal entry route to the course is from the Informatics ADCS. The Commentary explained
that, in the approval of Informatics, Hong Kong, to deliver the level 3
course, a focus of the validation event 'was on the appropriateness of
the ADCS for admission with advanced standing'. The definitive course document,
available through SCAN, contains information about other acceptable entry
qualifications. All students applying to join the course are seen by the
Course Leader in Hong Kong but not formally interviewed. The Admission
Tutor at the University sees the papers for all candidates and checks them
for equivalence. Students confirmed this application and admission process
in discussion with the team in Hong Kong. They indicated that, following
their informal interview and submission of their application, they received
a letter from the University admitting them to the course.
Assessment of students
46 The examination papers and assignments used at the University cannot be used by the Informatics centres because of the trimester delivery pattern employed by those centres. The Commentary explained that 'teaching staff at Informatics, Singapore, prepare draft examination papers and assignment questions for both centres', and will, presumably, for the new centres when they begin delivering the level 3 course. The papers and assignments are submitted to the University-based module tutor who will revise them as necessary. They are also sent for approval to the external examiner who has special responsibility for the Informatics course. The University subsequently reported that it expects to establish a bank of examination questions 'to which all the centres offering the programme will contribute', and which will be coordinated by Informatics, Singapore.
47 The 1999 Memorandum of Cooperation with Informatics Holdings Limited states that 'examination scripts for students taking the course shall be marked at Informatics and sent to the University for moderation by the relevant module leader'. In practice, assigned work and examination scripts are marked by teaching staff at Informatics, Hong Kong, and examination scripts are then second-marked by staff of Informatics, Singapore. Assignments and examination scripts are moderated by University module tutors. The Commentary explained that the School's policy is to moderate 10 per cent of all assessed work but 'if a discrepancy is identified in relation to a particular assessment all work for that assessment should be re-marked'. The Commentary noted that, in general, 'Faculty staff have had to make only minor adjustments to marks during the moderation process', and that where there had been the need for a University module tutor to re-mark the papers for a module the matter had been taken up 'with the centre and Singapore to avoid similar problems in the future'.
48 The audit team sampled assignments, examination papers and marked scripts from two modules. It formed the view that the standard of the examination papers was comparable with practice in the subject in the UK, although there was little evidence in the sample of scripts of students having explored the subject beyond the core teaching material. The team noted that an external examiner had commented that Hong Kong students were not always adequately prepared for assessment.
49 Students who met the audit team in Hong Kong reported that assignments were set, typically, after about two or three weeks of the start of the semester, but did not have to be submitted until shortly before the examination. Students receive feedback sheets from the local staff on their performance, but they do not receive their submitted assignment back, and the grade awarded may be notified to them together with, or later than, the examination result. It would seem, therefore, that assigned coursework can play only a limited formative function in the Informatics course. Local tutors who do the first assessment of assigned work might choose to give early feedback to students, but there is risk of this being misleading since the work has to be moderated before a final mark is agreed. The University might wish to find ways in which assigned coursework might be used to give students more timely formative feedback on their performance.
50 Projects are supervised and first-marked by the single project supervisor at the Wanchai Centre. The audit team was concerned at the workload on the supervisor, and the lack of specialist input into project assessment in areas outside the supervisor's own subject specialism. Projects are second-marked by staff at Informatics, Singapore, then moderated by Faculty staff at the University. The audit team saw evidence of marks on several projects being moderated downwards by Faculty staff, and felt that this indicated a need to give clearer guidance to Informatics staff on the academic standards expected of an honours-level project. Recent reports of external examiners have commented on the standard of project reports from Informatics centres, noting their lack of evaluation and analysis. The team saw a small sample of projects and agreed with the external examiners that students could be expected to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the subject area at honours-level.
51 In its Commentary the University recognised these difficulties
with the level 3 projects, and noted that it was reviewing the guidance
on project management given to Informatics staff by the University in its
staff development workshops. The Commentary also pointed out that
the external examiners' adverse comments had been directed at Informatics
students generally, with no specific reference to the Wanchai Centre. In
view of the long-standing relationship between the University and Informatics
Holdings, and the double-marking of projects by the Singapore Centre, the
audit team was surprised that it was still necessary for the University
to take significant corrective action through moderation by Faculty staff.
In its review of the effectiveness of staff development workshops at Informatics
centres the University might consider making clearer to Informatics staff
the reasons for the outcomes of moderation, and giving greater emphasis
to establishing a shared understanding of expectations of an honours-level
project.
External examiners
52 The appointment of external examiners for the CSIM Scheme is governed by the normal regulations of the University. The Memorandum of Cooperation requires that 'one of the external examiners appointed to the BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology (route) at the University shall act as the external examiner for the course', so, while all relevant external examiners will consider the results of Informatics students alongside students at the University, one has a special responsibility to consider the performance of Informatics students. That external examiner has visited Informatics, Singapore, and is expected to visit Informatics, Hong Kong, during 2000-01.
53 External examiners submit annual reports which are sent to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for academic matters. There are standard templates for the report, all of which are read by the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Responses to matters raised by the external examiners are monitored by the University's Academic Quality and Support Department. The audit team considered that the external examining process met the relevant precepts of QAA's Code of practice, and that the University had a sound process for identifying points of action on matters raised by external examiners.
54 The collaborative link between the University of Central England and Informatics, Hong Kong, is the final year (level 3) of one of the routes through the University's Computer Science and Information Management Scheme leading to the award of BSc (Honours) Business Information Technology.
55 The University provided for this audit a reflective Commentary on the collaborative link which proved a helpful starting point for the audit. In the Commentary reference was made to examples of adherence to QAA's Code of practice on collaborative provision, indicating that the University's arrangements for collaborative provision were compliant with the Code. The Commentary explained that the University had one other partnership where its programmes were delivered overseas, and considered that the partnership arrangements were similar to those which were the subject of this audit.
56 The course is delivered by staff of Informatics, Hong Kong, based upon teaching and administrative materials available to them electronically through the SCAN system. The University provides staff development visits to Informatics delivery centres to support staff delivering the course. In the Academic Agreement between the University and Informatics, Hong Kong, Informatics is also required to provide development for its staff. The effectiveness of the University's staff development visits might be enhanced if there was a clearer central statement of purpose for them and planned integration with development activity by Informatics. Nevertheless, there can be broad confidence that the University and Informatics together assure the quality of provision of the level 3 course delivered through Informatics centres.
57 Although the work of the project coordinator in preparing students for their level 3 project work is commendable, there is no means of ensuring that students have access to specialist support appropriate to the topic of their project. Some strengthening of the academic support and specialist guidance given to students in their projects would provide support for students in developing their analytical and evaluative skills.
58 Assigned work is marked by Informatics staff and moderated by the University. Because it is not returned to students until after the examination grade is received, assignments cannot be used to give students formative feedback. Students would benefit from more opportunity to receive timely feedback on their academic progress in coursework and projects.
59 The University moderates all assessed work. There is a continuing need, evident through moderation, to bring marking by staff of the centres into line with the University's expectations for the assessment of level 3 work, and the University has put into place staff development visits to Informatics delivery centres to address this need. The University has established control over the standards of awards through attention to second-marking and moderation, and there can be broad confidence that it has ultimate control of the standards of awards gained by students on the Informatics programme.
60 The quality assurance loop in this collaborative arrangement with the
University involves not only Informatics, Hong Kong, but also the delivery
centre at Informatics, Singapore, and the parent Company, Informatics Holdings
Limited. Although the University was endeavouring to ensure, through documented
agreements and staff development visits, that responsibilities and reporting
lines were secure, Informatics staff in Hong Kong were not always certain
which matters would be routed through Informatics, Singapore, and which
would be direct to the University. The University is encouraged to ensure
that it continues to have secure control of matters that concern it as
the awarding body, and that it retains effective oversight of matters devolved
to Informatics in respect of the quality of provision.
Comments*
Comments on the audit supplied by the University of Central England
The University was pleased to note the positive comments in the report and the recognition given to the strength of our links with Informatics. We wish to offer the following brief comments about the operation of the partnership in future.
The Collaborative Partnerships Committee mentioned in the report has now been established. This Committee will be asked to consider the report in relation to the partnership with Informatics specifically and to address any matters that might have wider significance for the rest of the University's collaborative provision in the UK and overseas.
In relation to the points made in the report, we will continue to work closely with Informatics to ensure that the reporting lines, mentioned in paragraph 18, continue to work effectively. In the forthcoming review of the CSIM scheme we will take account of a number of matters raised in the report, for example the students' comments about the inclusion of E-Commerce in the curriculum.
The report mentions the University's new report form for annual monitoring. During 2001-02 the Collaborative Partnerships Committee will review the effectiveness of this form in relation to all the University's collaborative arrangements, including the arrangement with Informatics. The form has been designed to improve the evaluative content of the reports and to facilitate the provision of feedback to course teams. It should also allow issues such as the adequacy of project supervision and the availability of learning resources to be monitored more closely.
In relation to paragraph 37 the University has advised the Quality Assurance Agency that the information in this paragraph is incorrect. No member of staff in Hong Kong has taught on the programme before his or her CV was approved by the University.
Top