Audit of overseas provision. University of Sunderland European University of Cyprus New York College, Athens and Thessaloniki

Transcription

1 Audit of overseas provision University of Sunderland European University of Cyprus New York College, Athens and Thessaloniki MAY 2008

2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2009 ISBN All QAA's publications are available on our website Registered charity numbers and SC037786

3 Audit of overseas provision Introduction 1 This report considers collaborative arrangements between the University of Sunderland (the University) and the European University of Cyprus, and between the University and New York College, Athens and Thessaloniki, to offer programmes of study in business and computing subject areas. 2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a United Kingdom (UK) organisation which seeks to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and funders of higher education. It does this mainly through a peer review process of audits and reviews conducted by teams of auditors and reviewers comprising academic staff from higher or further education institutions. The most recent Institutional audit of University of Sunderland was conducted by QAA in November The most recent Collaborative provision audit was in April One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2008, QAA conducted audits of selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. The purpose of these audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and the quality of education in their partnerships. The reports on the individual audits will be used in the preparation of an overview report on the collaborative arrangements for the management of standards and quality of UK higher education provision in Greece and Cyprus. The audit process for overseas collaborative links 4 In June 2007, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in Greece and Cyprus. On the basis of the information returned on the nature and scale of the links, QAA selected for audit visits seven UK institutions with links in Greece and Cyprus. Each of the selected institutions produced a commentary describing the way in which the link(s) operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. 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. Institutions were also invited in their commentaries to make reference to the ways in which their arrangements met the expectations of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), particularly Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), published by QAA in In spring 2008, audit visits were made to each of the selected UK institutions to discuss their arrangements in the light of their commentary. In May 2008, an audit team visited the partner institutions in Greece and Cyprus to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institutions' commentaries and from the UK visits. During the visits to institutions in Greece and Cyprus, discussions were conducted with key members of staff and with students. The full team conducting audits of institutions with collaborative links in Greece and Cyprus comprised Professor B Anderton (UK visits only), Dr R Davison (UK visits only), Professor P Hodson, Professor A Holmes, Professor P Maher, Professor D Meehan (auditors), Ms C Smith (audit secretary - UK and Greece visits), and Dr Gillian King (audit secretary - Cyprus visits). The audit was coordinated for QAA by Mrs E Harries Jenkins and Mr D Greenaway, Assistant Directors, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus for the willing cooperation they provided to the team. 1

4 University of Sunderland The context of collaborative provision with partners in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus Greece 6 Under the Greek constitution, higher education is the exclusive responsibility of the State and may be provided only by State institutions. Public higher education is divided into universities or higher educational institutes (known by the acronym AEI) and technological education institutes (TEIs). Both types of institutions award their own degrees and can also take part in collaborative activity to deliver awards of other providers, including UK providers. TEIs are considered as vocationally oriented higher education institutions. At the time of the audit, four TEIs had collaborative partnerships with UK institutions of which two were visited as part of the audit. 7 While there are no recognised private higher education institutions in Greece, local legislation permits private organisations offering post-school education to exist as liberal studies centres. At the time of the audit, 18 of these centres had collaborative arrangements with UK higher education institutions for the delivery of programmes leading to UK awards. 8 UK awards delivered through collaborations with private institutions are not recognised by the Greek State, which limits the opportunities for employment within the public sector and in regulated professional sectors. In the case of collaborations with public institutions the opportunity exists for submission to the government authorities for recognition. 9 Two months after the completion of the audit visit in Greece, the Greek Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs announced a new legal framework for the operation of private colleges, which included specific provision for collaborating with foreign degree awarding institutions. The Republic of Cyprus 10 At the time of the audit, higher education in Cyprus was offered by both public and private institutions. There are three state universities operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Culture and seven public schools of higher education that provide specific vocational education, and are under the control of other ministries. Three private institutions have recently been granted permission by the State to operate as private universities, one of which was visited as part of the audit. Private institutions offering their own qualifications must be registered with the Ministry of Education and Culture through the Council of Educational Evaluation- Accreditation (SEKAP); SEKAP is responsible for programme approval of private providers. 11 Private providers also collaborate with overseas institutions to offer programmes that lead to overseas awards. In such cases, qualifications are not automatically recognised by the State. A UK awarding institution may submit an application to the Cyprus Council for the Recognition of Title Studies (KYSATS) for an award delivered in Cyprus to be entered on a list of recognised programmes. If the application is successful, students holding that award may apply for their qualification to be considered for recognition by KYSATS. The background to the collaborative link General background 12 The University has a significant portfolio of collaborative provision delivered through a range of University approved models with varying degrees of input by the partner. The range spans from 'Model A', which reflects a validation arrangement, through to 'Model E' which reflects an independent learning arrangement. 13 The University has two partnerships in Greece, with New York College (the College) in Athens and Thessaloniki, and with Central College, Ioannina. It also has a partnership arrangement in the Republic of Cyprus with the European University of Cyprus (the European University). For the purposes of the overseas audit, the College and the European University were 2

5 Audit of overseas provision visited. These partnership arrangements are based in the School of Business, Law and Psychology, and the School of Computing and Technology. 14 All the provision covered in this audit operates under 'Model D' 'Tutor supported delivery (using University learning materials)', and has the following key features: programme planning and design, which are the responsibility of the University programme management, which is the responsibility of the University but with partner participation in some areas procedures for admission that essentially follow those of the on-campus programme and are the responsibility of the University students being considered to be students of the University delivery of teaching, which is by local staff (for both taught modules and project supervision) based on materials produced by the University assessments that are set and marked by the University local staff must gain recognised teacher status against specific modules from the University before commencing their duties. 15 The College was founded in 1989 and offers Higher National Diplomas, and bachelors' and masters' awards across a range of academic disciplines. It opened a branch in Thessaloniki in 2001 and has a growing international dimension with branches in Prague, Tirana, and Skopje. 16 The link with the College was first initiated in 1998 with the delivery of an MSc Management of Information Technology and has evolved over the past 10 years to include additional programmes and new developments. At the time of the audit, the following programmes were approved for delivery in Athens: BA Business Management (top-up); MBA (top-up); BSc Computer Systems Engineering (top-up); and MSc Information Technology Management. At the College (Thessaloniki) one programme is available: BA Business Management (top-up). 17 In Athens, the teaching is delivered either in weekend sessions for the MBA programme, as the students are all part-time and in work, or in several evening slots of three hours for both of the bachelors' programmes; the on-campus version is full-time. The Commentary noted that the language of teaching and assessment for all programmes is English; this was confirmed by the staff and students who met the audit team. 18 At the time of the audit, student numbers at the College (Athens) varied from 48 on the BA Business Management, to 16 on the BSc Computer Systems Engineering, and 16 on the MSc Information Technology Management. 19 At the College (Thessaloniki) a single cohort of six students was recruited to the BA Business Management in the academic year , but no further recruitment has taken place since. The audit team was advised by the College that the market for a one-year top-up route was not strong and other more marketable options needed to be considered. 20 The European University was founded as Cyprus College in the early 1960s, and is one of the oldest private colleges in Cyprus. It has gained accreditation from the government to operate a range of degree programmes over recent years, and in September 2007 was granted university status with approval to deliver 20 bachelors' and three masters' awards, including an MBA. EUC are now seeking to extend this range of programmes and gain further accreditation of additional awards from the Cypriot government. The current University programme, an MBA top-up, has been in place since Students transfer from the the European University MBA with 75 credits of advanced standing onto the University's top-up MBA. To date, 39 students have enrolled on the top-up MBA. 3

6 University of Sunderland 21 At the European University, the MBA is delivered in multiple evening sessions, and the students consider themselves to be full-time, although many work part-time. The audit team was not clear how students at the European University and the College were able to undertake the required 40 hours of study each week through the patterns of delivery. 22 The memoranda of agreement state that minimum student numbers will be agreed each year. Although minimum numbers are outlined in the initial business plan for each programme in the proposed partnership, the Commentary explained that there may be legitimate reasons for running a programme with fewer students. The audit team noted the low numbers currently enrolling in both Greece and Cyprus which were below the target numbers in a number of cases. The University informed the team that it was currently looking at its range of collaborative provision to secure a robust academic and financial basis as a strategy to underpin continuing and future relationships. 23 The University considered that the programmes under review in this audit to be typical of its Model D arrangement. The UK institution's approach 24 The Commentary stated that the University retains overall responsibility for the maintenance and monitoring of academic standards on these collaborative programmes. To achieve this, the University retains responsibility for all matters relating to admissions and registration, and produces all the teaching and learning materials. Some local contextualisation of materials, such as case-studies, was permissible in order to facilitate student understanding. To further guarantee University control, all assessments were set, moderated and marked by the University. A system of submitting assessments for marking to a first tier of markers had operated for some time (see paragraph 73). Student records, reports, feedback and assessments were also retained by the University. A theme that emerged, from both the Commentary and in the discussions the audit team held with the University, was the importance placed on achieving equivalence of standards between the on and off-campus modes of study. 25 The University ensures the quality of learning opportunities through delivery of the teaching by local staff who have gained recognised teacher status, and by ensuring the adequacy of learning resource provision at the local partner as part of the initial approval process and,subsequently, through annual site visits and annual monitoring. 26 The Commentary stated that 'the management and quality assurance processes for the University's off-campus operations comply with the QAA Code of practice'. The audit team confirmed that the University's handbook 'Arrangements of collaborative, flexible and distributed learning provision' clearly states how responsibilities are shared between the University and its partners in relation to Model D. This included a schedule of requirements for monitoring and review. 27 The University has a specific committee structure, which oversees the approval and management of its collaborative provision. The Collaborative Provision Group is the principal University committee charged with oversight of collaborative provision. The Group reports to the University's Quality Assurance Board, which is ultimately responsible to the Academic Board. The Student Recruitment and Business Partnership Service is responsible for the financial arrangements and manages the process of drafting the memoranda of agreement and their final signing. 28 Each school has its own quality assurance board and a school collaborative provision group, mirroring the University-level committee. Schools have an undergraduate and postgraduate programme board of study, which take responsibility for the day-to-day management of the provision. They also have a programme board of examiners. 4

7 Audit of overseas provision 29 Key personnel in the operational management of the provision are the programme leaders at the University, supported by link tutors who are the main day-to-day link with the partners' programme managers. Link tutors are also referred to as 'quality assurance reviewers' and 'centre leaders' by the two schools who provide the programmes. Link tutors make regular visits to the partner institutions, and are in frequent contact with their opposite numbers in Greece and Cyprus. These arrangements are strengthened through the support of a dedicated school administrator for off-campus programmes. 30 The Commentary noted that at institutional level a new post of Collaborative Provision Manager, based in the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Team, had been established to oversee the quality assurance and enhancement of all UK and overseas collaborative taught programmes. The University considers that this post has increased central oversight in relation to collaborative provision and has provided further support to schools of the University. The audit team recognised the rationale in establishing such a post. 31 The structures established to support the management of these partnerships, detailed in the Model D specification, are designed to provide an appropriate level of involvement and consideration of issues by the University. From the evidence presented, the audit team formed the view that the committee structures, levels of reporting within and between them, and the detail behind any consideration of issues was providing an effective oversight of the partnerships. Public information, publicity and promotional activity 32 All publicity material produced by the partner institution relating to the course must be approved by the University. The agencies for vetting and approving publicity material are the link tutors, and partners are required to send proposed publication material to them prior to publication. During the cycle of annual visits, further checks are made on the materials being distributed by the partners. However, the University was not able to point to any mechanism whereby it systematically monitored publicity material available on websites relating to the courses. The audit team was informed by the College that they used television advertisements as a major part of their recruitment drive and confirmed that these were shown at a later date to the link tutors during their biannual visits. 33 The audit team was provided with examples of promotional materials for both off-campus provisions, which in all instances made clear the relationship between the University and the partner institution. Formal procedures for establishing the link Selecting and approving the partner institution 34 The current process for the approval of a partner institution is described in the University's document 'Procedure for Approval of New Overseas or Private UK partner for Delivery of Programmes off-campus'. An outline proposal is submitted to the Academic Programme Committee, which either gives approval or rejects the proposal. If the Committee gives approval, then due diligence checks are carried out by Student Recruitment and Business Partnerships and Finance and Planning. 35 Each new partnership requires an approval event, with all panel members drawn from within the University, but with representation from a range of stakeholders within it, including a member of the University from outside of the school initiating the collaboration. The approval panel considers a range of documentation and may visit the partner institution. The panel are required to consider: the legal status of the partner, including a due diligence review the financial stability of the partner 5

8 University of Sunderland the suitability of the partner's resources (rooms, computing equipment and library) the availability of appropriately defined staff and their match to the modules to be taught the arrangements for the administration and management of the proposed programmes sustainable market demand the site visit report, undertaken by a member of University staff, detailing resources at the proposed partner staff curricula vitae financial information business plan/risk assessment. 36 The University requires that advice is sought on the potential impact of local legislation on the structure and nature of the course and on any requirements in respect to the recognition of the course. The University seeks advice from the British Council and, in the case of Greece, has its own staffed office located in Athens. Although this office has primarily a marketing-based role it is able to offer advice and support, and was instrumental in bringing the Athens partner into contact with the University. At the time of the audit, awards of overseas institutions are not automatically recognised in Greece and Cyprus. In Cyprus it is possible to request that an award entered on a list of recognised programmes held by the Cyprus Council for the Recognition of Title Studies (KYSATS), which if granted allows individual students to submit details of their studies to the Council to have their individual qualifications assessed on a case-by-case basis, and if successful, recognised. The University, however, has not elected to do this because the 'MBA is taken exclusively by non-cypriot students for whom KYSATS registration is not an issue'. 37 A new partner approval event may take place at the same time as a programme approval event. The relevant school Quality Assurance Board considers all responses to conditions of approval that have been addressed through actions taken or planned. The Board recommendation is sent to the Collaborative Provision Group for approval and then to the Quality Assurance Board. At this stage the Student Recruitment and Business Partnership Service issues a Memorandum of Agreement for signature by all parties. 38 The Commentary noted that while the European University went through the current institutional approval procedures outlined above, the partnership with the College predates these procedures, but was subject to an equivalent process which prevailed at the time and that these correspond with the 'major points' of the existing procedures. 39 In discussions with staff at the College, the audit team heard about the careful consideration that supported the College's identification of the University as the awarding institution. Consideration focused on the match to their own existing course provision; the top-up route they were seeking to achieve and the ability and reputation of the University. Similarly, when Cyprus College (as it was then) was originally seeking a partner for articulation arrangements, it identified the University as having good strategic fit and has valued the personal approach demonstrated by the University. Programme approval 40 As noted earlier, under Model D, a partnership is based on programme(s) that have been approved and running at the University for some time, usually with well-established learning materials in place. The focus of programme approval is therefore on the ability of the partner to offer the students the right support. The programmes offered through the partnerships with the College and the European University had already been approved for delivery at the University and, therefore, a separate programme approval event was not necessary. 6

9 Audit of overseas provision 41 Collaborative partners are able to make recommendations for programme amendments, either during link tutor visits or through their annual monitoring report contribution. Changes to the learning materials have also been implemented with approval from the University; for example, the School of Computing and Technology requested that materials are now delivered through PowerPoint rather than video. 42 A school at the University may add a programme that is already approved for delivery oncampus to a partner's portfolio, provided the new programme is at the same, or a lower academic level and requires the same or a lower level of devolved responsibility to the partner institution as those programmes already approved. If the new programme requires a greater devolvement of responsibility to the partner institution then additional quality assurance is required. In the case of extending the College partnership to include delivery of programmes in Thessaloniki, the University elected to treat this as an extension of an existing partnership and, therefore, approved the new location through a paper-based exercise. The audit team saw evidence of the consideration of the recommendations from the approval report arising from the paper-based exercise at the school Quality Assurance Board. It was clear that any conditions had to be actioned before final approval was given to proceed to formal agreement of a memorandum of agreement. Given that the College (Thessaloniki) identified that the top-up route offered is not appropriate to their market and, hence, the poor recruitment rate (see paragraph 19), the University may wish to consider whether a fuller approval event would have identified that position prior to the recruitment process. 43 The programme specifications seen by the audit team demonstrated that appropriate consideration of relevant subject benchmark statements had taken place during the programme approval stage. Cognisance of The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was also clearly evident. 44 From the evidence seen, the audit team concluded that all of the programmes offered in these partnerships had been maintained in a state of approval, and reflected the on-campus provision, albeit sometimes with a planned delay in the introduction of teaching materials from new curriculum and associated assessment to the collaborative partners. Written agreements 45 The responsibilities of both the University and a partner institution are outlined in the Model D specification and these were articulated clearly within the memorandum of agreements seen by the audit team. The financial annex of each agreement is reviewed annually. The signed agreements for the current academic year were dated as being signed on 1 October 2007 by all signatories, although the partners confirmed that they had signed the agreement more recently than October 2007, and had not received final copies until March The University may wish to consider future mechanisms for ensuring all parties have signed copies of the agreement in place prior to the commencement of programme delivery. 46 Although a few minor discrepancies were identified in the agreements by the audit team, such as a requirement for 'local tutors to live in India', overall, the audit team formed the view that the agreements were both comprehensive in their coverage and clearly expressed. Quality management of the link Management of the link 47 The University retains overall responsibility for the academic management and control of the programme. As noted in paragraph 29, key personnel in the management of the link include a University programme leader and link tutor for each of the collaborations, and a local course coordinator or programme manager at each of the partners. The University link tutors and other staff at the University make regular visits to the collaborative partners, typically twice a year. 7

10 University of Sunderland Both partners and the University have named academic coordinators and nominated administrative link coordinators. Additionally, specific activities are undertaken by dedicated staff in areas such as the Academic Services Collaborative Provision Office. 48 In 2005, the University entered into an arrangement with a commercial education provider, Resource Development International who are based in Coventry. They were contracted to provide administrative support for the School of Business, Law and Psychology, and its partnerships, including coordination of the admissions procedures, coordination of the marking of student work, using a first tier of markers (see paragraph 73), and the introduction of new partnerships. The University Commentary stated that in the light of feedback from a range of partners these administrative functions were brought back in-house, and although a contract remains in place with Resource Development International, they no longer play a role in supporting the programmes. However, the University subsequently confirmed that the School had decided to retain the Company for the coordination of all admissions applications until September 2009 and the European University confirmed they continue to submit student applications through Resource Development International. The College advised the audit team that this was not the case for them. The collaborative arrangements are now supported by the School administrators and the Collaborative Provision Office within Academic Services. 49 The University has been actively seeking ways to manage effectively its administration of the partnerships, demonstrated by the changes in the role of Resource Development International over recent years. The University provided the audit team with copies of correspondence to the European University and the College, dated February 2007, setting out revised procedures. These revised procedures explicitly stated that student application would continue to be submitted to Resource Development International. Given the variability in practice outlined above, the University might wish to consider how it monitors adherence, by remote centres, to its stated procedures. 50 The University enrols students and maintains the student records, and is responsible for assessment procedures, examination boards and awards. Both the College and the European University confirmed that they also kept copies of student records, but indicated that the students are students of the University and their own records are not the definitive copy. 51 The University makes a strong claim that there is an equivalence of experience between its on and off-campus provision. For each partner the University generates statistical information on student progression and achievement at both the module and programme levels, and presents this in a comparative format for off and on-campus students. These data are considered at the school assessment boards. The audit team formed the view that each school was giving considerable attention to the detailed information. The team saw evidence that the University is able to compare performance between students of all cohort groups at both the module and programme levels. 52 Each of the partners visited confirmed that they received data on their students' performance, but would have welcomed the opportunity to benchmark their own centre's performance by comparing their data with information on cohorts at other collaborative partners and not just the on-campus students. 53 Schools provide students with a detailed student handbook and an induction programme. This is sometimes delivered by the partner, although the first visit of the link tutor to the partner may coincide with induction, and will therefore supplement local induction arrangements. The University is considering developing an online induction course. Students have continuing contact with the link tutor or other University staff during their regular visits to the partner institutions: students confirmed their general satisfaction with these arrangements. The audit team heard from students at the European University that there had been an improvement in the communication and support from the University over the last academic year. Local programme managers act as personal tutors to all students on their respective programmes. 8

11 Audit of overseas provision There are no local student-staff liaison committees at any of these collaborations; students can raise issues directly with partner staff or staff from the University when they visit. Annual monitoring and review 54 The University devolves annual monitoring to school level and the same procedure is used for both on and off-campus provision. The Commentary stated that each collaborative partner is required to submit an annual report to the University using a structured approach, commenting on programme delivery and the effectiveness of the liaision. Link tutors provide guidance to the partners on the requirements of this annual monitoring report to supplement the staff handbooks provided by each school and issued to each partner. The audit team noted some variability in the level of detailed analysis in the programme monitoring reports available to it. 55 The annual monitoring reports are integrated into a programme evaluation annual report produced by the programme leader at the University. Undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the schools are monitored separately. The overarching programme evaluation annual reports seen by the audit team were detailed and contained much analysis, with thoughtful and reflective comments, recommendations and proposals for change where appropriate. The University management information system is able to generate supporting statistical information which identifies the performances at each partner institution as well as individual module performances (see paragraph 51 above). The data produced by the University to analyse student progression and achievement are sufficiently detailed to support the effective management of the off-campus students and their respective partner links. 56 External examiners have two inputs into the annual monitoring process. First, they write an annual report based on a template designed to capture information in a structured manner, and which encourages all external examiners to address the full range of topics upon which the University seeks input, including standards, assessment, student performance, operation of assessment boards, meetings with students, collaborative partners, and good practice. Additionally, the external examiners visit a number of partner links each year on a rolling basis and provide post-visit reports to the University (see paragraph 80). 57 Student input at module and programme level contribute to the annual monitoring process and are reported in depth in the programme evaluation annual report. Each student is encouraged to participate in module evaluations and contribute to discussions with visiting link tutors, and this was well understood by the students that the audit team met (see paragraph 91). 58 Each school quality assurance board receives programme evaluation annual reports for all provision, including programmes delivered off-campus. Each partner then receives feedback from the University on generic issues which have been identified, in addition to focused feedback relating specifically to themselves. Staff at the partner institutions confirmed that they received and valued this feedback. Each school submits an annual monitoring report to the Quality Assurance Board and relevant sections of those reports are considered by the University Collaborative Provision Group. The Group produces an overview report on external examiners, comments and an annual report to the Quality Assurance Board. 59 The very detailed evaluation reporting, the careful analysis, and the constructive feedback offered to partners were viewed by the University as a robust approach to the management of the partnerships. The audit team concluded that the University's confidence in this approach was well founded. Periodic review 60 Review of programmes is scheduled to take place every five years and is synonymous with programme reapproval. Staff at the partner institutions were not familiar with the term periodic review. While collaborative provision may be considered at the same time as on-campus provision, schools are encouraged to hold separate events. The separate events for off-campus 9

12 University of Sunderland review may be delayed for up to two years to enable the University to develop new teaching materials reflecting changes to the curricula: hence, collaborative partners may run on a curriculum which is older than on-campus provision during this period. 61 Model D identifies a number of issues as relevant to the reapproval of collaborative provision programmes: liaison mechanisms; quality assurance activities (including review of learning materials and moderation of assessment); and staff development. The documentation includes evaluation of student and staff feedback, external examiner comment and student performance. 62 The audit team learnt that since the initial approval there has been no periodic review of the partnerships and the partners were not aware of any subsequent review of programmes. The University recognises that periodic review of a partnership is needed as an additional feature to their existing arrangements and is undertaking a process of review in response to its Collaborative provision audit in The team would encourage the University to complete this review and implement the outcomes as soon as possible. Staffing and staff development 63 Local staff who deliver teaching must have recognised teacher status with the University. Recognised teacher status also enables these staff to supervise the project or dissertation module: in all instances the University has responsibility for setting and marking all assessments. The University keeps a record of all staff teaching on its programmes. Each year, a full matrix of staff at each partner link is reviewed, and only the staff who have recognised teacher status approval for a module are permitted to commence the delivery of any teaching or supervision. 64 Local recognised teacher status-approved staff interact with the link tutor and other University staff during their visits. University staff organise seminars on specific topics such as strategies to manage and avoid student plagiarism when they visit. Staff at the European University informed the audit team that external examiners also hold seminars on teaching and assessment during their visits to the institution. In addition, off-campus module leaders interact on a regular basis with the University's module leaders, typically via . At the College (Athens) the piloting of a videoconferencing facility to enhance and extend communication was viewed very positively by the staff. The University hosts a 'frequently asked questions' and newsletter page on its intranet for staff in partner institutions. This provides access for these staff to issues that commonly arise and to share recently emerging themes. 65 College and European University staff have electronic access to University systems, including the University's virtual learning environment. It was evident to the audit team that the staff had a clear understanding of how to address student issues in accordance with University requirements, for example extenuating circumstances and student complaints. Local recognised teacher status staff, as well as having the support of the link tutor, may contact the module leader or module staff at the University directly. 66 Both College and European University staff are invited to the University for specific staff development opportunities. For example, staff at the College took the opportunity to attend a three-day seminar on collaborative provision hosted by the School of Business Law and Psychology. Further visits are planned for the future. Staff at the European University confirmed that this level of exchange was not in their current plans. 67 The University implements its system of peer review through regular teaching observation of the recognised teacher status local tutors conducted during the visits by link tutors. The University gives clear support to the staff at the partner institutions through staff handbooks, teaching materials and during visits. The University considers this to be an effective way to sustain the standing of staff engaged in the teaching. The audit team reviewed a sample of teaching materials and found them to be detailed and supportive for partner staff and concluded that the arrangements in place underpinned the delivery of teaching in an effective way. Topics discussed 10

13 Audit of overseas provision during site visits by the link tutor include regulations, referencing, plagiarism and the responsibilities of a tutor. 68 The combination of site visits, staff handbooks, the virtual learning environment and access to electronic resources, staff development activities and peer observation, taken together, were viewed by the audit team as making a positive contribution to staff development at the collaborative partner links. Student admissions 69 Programme specifications set out clearly entry requirements in terms of academic qualification, experience and competence in the English language. The entry requirements set for on-campus entry apply to off-campus students and the University is responsible for all admissions. 70 Many of the programmes offered through these partnership arrangements are top-up programmes, which students access on completion of programmes awarded by the partner institutions. An important part of the approval process, therefore, was the consideration of the curriculum of the qualifying award and its relevance for entry to the top-up programme. 71 The partner institutions receive and forward all appropriate applications to the University, having screened out applications which obviously do not meet the University's requirements. The University has sole responsibility for making admissions decisions, and makes judgements on all applications using the same approach as it would for its on-campus applicants. 72 The admissions process appears to be generally working well and the response time from application to outcome was operating within the agreed arrangements. However, entry onto the University's MBA programme delivered at the European University is stated as requiring two years, 'business' experience, or three years' experience if the student is entering via the European University MBA. The audit team learnt from the students it met that they had proceeded directly from their undergraduate studies with no graduate experience. The team formed the view that the admissions criteria in this programme area were not being applied appropriately to the approved entry level and that this was directly impacting on the student learning experience, with some students not well qualified for the course and subsequently having notable difficulties. The University might wish to review the admissions criteria to the MBA programme at the European University to ensure entry to off-campus mode of study is as approved in the programme specification. Assurance of academic standards Assessment 73 Under the auspices of Model D, the University sets, marks and moderates all assessments pertaining to the collaborative partnerships. However, in the partnerships considered in this audit, assignments are marked by 'first tier markers'. 74 Module leaders at the University are responsible for ensuring that marks are moderated before being considered by examination boards and returned to students in the case of assignments. The students at both the College and the European University commented on the delays in receiving feedback on their assignments: typically between eight and 10 weeks between submission and response were quoted. The students noted that they had been briefed by the local tutors on why the process was lengthy, but remained concerned, especially when marked assignments were not returned before examination sessions. The University recognised that this was an issue and was currently piloting an electronic feedback system. It also planned to move to a full online electronic submission system. 11

14 University of Sunderland 75 Off-campus students at the College and the European University sit the same examinations as on-campus students; synchronised to be held at the same time. Partner institutions are provided with the regulations for invigilation. The School of Computing and Technology's Undergraduate Programme Evaluation Report for the academic year noted some difficulty in achieving synchronisation across all its partners following the late release of the central examination schedule. The audit team was assured this had not created any difficulty for the students and was an isolated incident. This view was confirmed by the students. 76 The standard arrangement for the dissertation component of the MBA, both on and offcampus, is the submission of a written dissertation. There is no viva or presentation by the students of their work. At the European University, the audit team learnt that up to half the cohort return to their home countries to undertake the dissertation component. The team heard of the difficulties experienced in maintaining supervision contact in some instances, with only very limited communication taking place. In those circumstances the expectations of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students, with respect to promoting effective learning and having due regard for security, are more difficult to exercise. The University might wish to review this arrangement. 77 The University operates a tiered examination board system, with panels considering module level results, and examination boards considering overall performance at programme level. On and off-campus results go to the same examinations boards held at the University. External examiners 78 The University regards its external examining arrangements as a key strength in the effective monitoring and maintenance of academic standards in its collaborative partnerships. The same external examiners are typically appointed to cover both the on and off-campus versions of the programmes, although it is possible for externals to be allocated specific responsibility for partners. 79 The process for consideration of external examiners' reports is similar for both on and off-campus programmes. Additionally, the Collaborative Provision Group considers the report pertinent to collaborative arrangements and undertakes to produce an overview for the Quality Assurance Board. Both NYC and EUC confirmed they had sight of the external examiners' reports and work with the University in identifying and taking forward any action plans arising. 80 The arrangements for common external examiners covering both on and off-campus programmes have the potential to ensure informed judgements are being made about the comparability of standards. The detailed examiners' reports, generated through the rolling programme of visits to each partner institution, which cycles typically every three or four years, is an additional strength and is helping to develop the partnerships and secure standards. Certificates and transcripts 81 From the sample of certificate and transcripts seen, the audit team was able to confirm that both the degree certificate and transcript record the location of study and that all modules are delivered and assessed in English. In addition, transcripts contain grade descriptor statements to aid interpretation of the module grades. Quality of information for students Student information 82 Students at the partner institutions are provided with school-designed student handbooks, which cover a wide range of general support and regulatory information. The handbooks seen by the audit team cover core information consistently and differ only in detail. The handbooks can be supplemented locally, with approval from the University, and the material seen by the team demonstrated that this opportunity was being taken, albeit on a small scale. 12

15 Audit of overseas provision 83 The University considers the arrangements to be well developed and continues to review their effectiveness. Student support arrangements 84 The University link tutor acts as the contact point for all students within the collaborative provision. Under the Model D arrangement, the partner is responsible for pastoral support and the University for academic support. Typically, the programme manager at the partner institutions acts as the students' personal tutor, and students would normally discuss academic issues with them first. If an issue was unresolved, the student handbooks provide addresses for the relevant University staff where issues can be raised. These arrangements are supplemented by biannual visits from University staff and the development of videoconferencing links at the College. 85 Students have full rights to use the University's library: the University has ensured that all licence issues relating to collaborative provision activity have been addressed fully. The University also offers a book-loan scheme whereby students at the partner colleges can request books or copies of journals to be sent to them. Students who met the audit team were aware of this service but had not yet accessed it. 86 The audit team was less clear about student access to the University's virtual learning environment. The Commentary stated that 'clear guidance is provided to students on the use of all services through a dedicated web site and a range of online support tools'. However, the team was informed that the placing of learning materials on the virtual learning environment was in the early stages of development and the University recognised the use of this environment was not as high as they hoped. It was noted that supplementary induction material was also being prepared for virtual learning environment delivery. At both the College and the European University, academic staff reported that students did have access to the virtual learning environment, but at both locations the students confirmed the team's understanding that this was not the prevailing arrangement. The team would encourage the University to clarify the position regarding student access to the virtual learning environment with partner staff. 87 From the material seen and the discussions with students, the audit team formed the view that the University provides students with a set of comprehensive teaching and learning materials which were valued highly by students, and effectively support their learning experience. 88 The audit team was told that all student discipline issues, complaints and academic appeals are dealt with by the University through its regulatory framework with appropriate externality provided via staff from other schools. For example, any infringements panel set up to consider a case would have a member from another school present. The team heard that staff at the partner institutions strive to address student concerns and resolve issues informally, prior to any complaint being generated: students in both locations confirmed that this was generally working well. Student input into quality management 89 Student representation on course committees was identified by the University as an area that is outside the cultural norms for Greece and Cyprus and to this end, there is no formal and minuted student-staff liaison committee, although it is required in the Memorandum of Agreement. The University has, therefore, set in place alternative arrangements to provide an effective way for the students to have a 'voice'. Typically, this is achieved during the cycle of biannual visits undertaken by the link tutor where a series of structured meetings are held, including a meeting with the students. This is supplemented by the use of videoconferencing in the case of the School of Computing and Technology in its link with the College (Athens), through which students are provided with specific briefing sessions such as an introduction to the project module, and this was particularly welcomed by the students. 13

16 University of Sunderland 90 Students that met with the audit team were largely positive about their experiences and ability to raise issues, providing examples of improvements made in light of their comments. The students welcomed the contact with University staff during their visits each year, which provided the opportunity for immediate feedback on issues, and informed them of new developments such as enhanced library facilities. Students confirmed that they complete standard University module questionnaires and that these are considered through the annual monitoring process. 91 The audit team concluded that while no formal feedback from a staff-student liaison committee operates in the collaborative partners, the regular visits by staff from the University act as an equivalent. In the case of the College, the environment and contribution of the local staff, particularly the programme managers, is working effectively and enables the students to have a voice. The development of a videoconferencing link at the College has been welcomed by the students as an avenue to provide further feedback. Conclusions 92 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following positive features: the clearly articulated Model D specification, which facilitates understanding of University and partner responsibilities, and the processes and procedures necessary to ensure standards and quality (paragraphs 14, 26, 31, 45, 61) the regular pattern of visits to partners by link tutors in supporting the effective operation of the partnership (paragraphs 29, 32, 53-54, 57, 64, 66, 84, 89) the undergraduate programme evaluation annual reports produced by the programme leaders at the University, which provide detailed and thoughtful analysis and reflection, that contributes effectively to the annual monitoring process (paragraph 55) the rolling programme of external examiner visits with detailed reports enabling the University to identify and take appropriate action (paragraphs 56, 64, 80) the combination of visits by University staff; staff handbooks; the virtual learning environment and access to electronic resources; and the peer observation scheme in making a positive contribution to staff development at the collaborative partner links (paragraph 68). 93 The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by the University: develop mechanisms for ensuring all parties have signed copies of the Memorandum of Agreement in place prior to the commencement of programme delivery (paragraph 45) consider how it monitors adherence, by remote centres, to its stated procedures (paragraph 49) implement a formal periodic review of its partnerships (paragraph 62) review the admissions criteria to the MBA programme at the European University to ensure entry to off-campus mode of study is as approved in the programme specification (paragraph 72) review the current arrangements at the European University where a student can undertake an MBA dissertation having returned to their home country (paragraph 76). 14

17 Audit of overseas provision 94 The University is conscious of the requirements of the Code of practice, published by QAA, and it appears to operate in a manner which is consistent with the Code. 95 The Commentary largely describes an accurate picture of the framework within which the partnerships operate. The operational procedures and structures as described in the Commentary would lead to the confidence expressed by the University. The audit team observed several areas where the implementation has not fully met the procedures described. 15

18 University of Sunderland Appendix A Update on the partnership since the audit There are no substantive changes since the audit. 16

19 Audit of overseas provision Appendix B Student statistics as at November 2008 Summary of provision New York College, Athens School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled complete continuing Business, BA (Hons) Law and Business Psychology Management (BLP) MBA Computing BSc (Hons) and Computer Technology Systems (CAT) Engineering MSc Information Technology Management School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled to complete continuing date ** BLP BA (Hons) 42* Business Management MBA 21* CAT BSc (Hons) Computer Systems Engineering MSc Information Technology Management 17

20 University of Sunderland New York College, Thessaloniki School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled complete continuing BLP BA (Hons) Business Management School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled to complete continuing date ** BLP BA (Hons) Business Management European University, Cyprus School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled complete continuing BLP MBA School Programme enrolled complete continuing enrolled to complete continuing date ** BLP MBA 32* * These numbers increased from those provided at time of visit due to a further student intake in July ** In this column enrolled students include new and continuing students. 18