University of Sunderland April 2006 - Archive · University of Sunderland APRIL 2006. Preface The...

University of Sunderland

APRIL 2006

Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) exists to safeguard the public interest insound standards of higher education (HE) qualifications and to encourage continuous improvementin the management of the quality of HE.

To do this QAA carries out reviews of individual HE institutions (universities and colleges of HE). InEngland and Northern Ireland this process is known as institutional audit. QAA operates similar butseparate processes in Scotland and Wales. For institutions that have large and complex provisionoffered through partnerships, QAA conducts collaborative provision audits in addition toinstitutional audits.

The purpose of collaborative provision audit

Collaborative provision audit shares the aims of institutional audit: to meet the public interest inknowing that universities and colleges are:

providing HE, awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and an appropriate academicstandard, and

exercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner.

Judgements

Collaborative provision audit results in judgements about the institutions being reviewed.Judgements are made about:

the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution's present andlikely future management of the quality of the academic standards of its awards made throughcollaborative arrangements

the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the present and likely future capacity of theawarding institution to satisfy itself that the learning opportunities offered to students throughits collaborative arrangements are managed effectively and meet its requirements; and

the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness andfrankness of the information that the institution publishes, (or authorises to be published)about the quality of its programmes offered through collaborative provision that lead to itsawards and the standards of those awards.

These judgements are expressed as either broad confidence, limited confidence or no confidenceand are accompanied by examples of good practice and recommendations for improvement.

Nationally agreed standards

Collaborative provision audit uses a set of nationally agreed reference points, known as the'Academic Infrastructure', to consider an institution's standards and quality. These are published byQAA and consist of:

The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ),which includes descriptions of different HE qualifications

The Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education

subject benchmark statements, which describe the characteristics of degrees in different subjects

guidelines for preparing programme specifications, which are descriptions of the what is onoffer to students in individual programmes of study. They outline the intended knowledge,skills, understanding and attributes of a student completing that programme. They also givedetails of teaching and assessment methods and link the programme to the FHEQ.

The audit process

Collaborative provision audits are carried out by teams of academics who review the way in whichinstitutions oversee their academic quality and standards. Because they are evaluating their equals,the process is called 'peer review'.

The main elements of collaborative provision audit are:

a preliminary visit by QAA to the institution nine months before the audit visit

a self-evaluation document submitted by the institution four months before the audit visit

a written submission by the student representative body, if they have chosen to do so, fourmonths before the audit visit

a detailed briefing visit to the institution by the audit team six weeks before the audit visit

visits to up to six partner institutions by members of the audit team

the audit visit, which lasts five days

the publication of a report on the audit team's judgements and findings 22 weeks after theaudit visit.

The evidence for the audit

In order to obtain the evidence for its judgement, the audit team carries out a number of activities,including:

reviewing the institution's own internal procedures and documents, such as regulations, policystatements, codes of practice, recruitment publications and minutes of relevant meetings, aswell as the self-evaluation document itself

reviewing the written submission from students

asking questions of relevant staff from the institution and from partners

talking to students from partner institutions about their experiences

exploring how the institution uses the Academic Infrastructure.

The audit team also gathers evidence by focusing on examples of the institution's internal qualityassurance processes at work through visits to partners. In addition, the audit team may focus on aparticular theme that runs throughout the institution's management of its standards and quality.This is known as a 'thematic enquiry'.

From 2004, institutions will be required to publish information about the quality and standards oftheir programmes and awards in a format recommended in document 03/51, Information on qualityand standards in higher education: Final guidance, published by the Higher Education FundingCouncil for England. The audit team reviews how institutions are working towards this requirement.

© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2006

ISBN 1 84482 570 1

All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk

Printed copies are available from:Linney DirectAdamswayMansfieldNG18 4FN

Tel 01623 450788Fax 01623 450629Email [email protected]

Registered charity number 1062746

Summary 1

Introduction 1

Outcome of the collaborative provision audit 1

Features of good practice 1

Recommendations for action 2

National reference points 2

Main report 4

Section 1: Introduction: the institution and its mission as it relates to collaborative provision 4

The collaborative provision audit process 5

Background information 5

Developments since the institutional audit of the awarding institution 6

Section 2: The collaborative provision audit investigations: theawarding institution's processes for quality management incollaborative provision 6

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision 6

The awarding institution's framework formanaging the quality of the students'experience and academic standards incollaborative provision 7

The awarding institution's intentions for enhancing the management of itscollaborative provision 10

The awarding institution's internal approval, monitoring and reviewarrangements for collaborative provision leading to its awards 11

External participation in internal reviewprocesses for collaborative provision 15

External examiners and their reports incollaborative provision 15

The use made of external reference points in collaborative provision 17

Review and accreditation by externalagencies of programmes leading to theawarding institution's awards offered through collaborative provision 18

Student representation in collaborativeprovision 19

Feedback from students, graduates and employers 20

Student admission, progression, completion and assessment information for collaborative provision 21

Assurance of the quality of teaching staff in collaborative provision; appointment, appraisal, support anddevelopment 22

Assurance of the quality of distributed and distance methods delivered through an arrangement with a partner 24

Learning support resources for students in collaborative provision 26

Academic guidance and personal support for students in collaborative provision 28

Section 3: The collaborative provision audit investigations: published information 28

Comments on the experience of students in collaborative provision of thepublished information available to them 28

Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information on collaborativeprovision leading to the awardinginstitution's awards 30

Findings 32

The effectiveness of the implementation of the awarding institution's approach tomanaging its collaborative provision 32

The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for assuring thequality of educational provision in itscollaborative provision 33

The effectiveness of the awardinginstitution's procedures for safeguarding the standards of its awards gained through collaborative provision 34

The awarding institution's use of theAcademic Infrastructure in the context of its collaborative provision 35

Contents

The utility of the collaborative provision self-evaluation document as an illustration of the awarding institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations in collaborative provision, and to act on these to enhance quality and safeguard academic standards 35

Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards 35

Reliability of information provided by theawarding institution on its collaborativeprovision 36

Features of good practice 37

Recommendations for action 37

Appendix 38

The University of Sunderland's response to the collaborative provision audit report 38

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) visited theUniversity of Sunderland (the University) from 3to 7 April 2006 to carry out a collaborativeprovision audit. The purpose of the audit was toprovide public information on the quality of theprogrammes offered by the University throughcollaborative arrangements with partnerorganisations, and on the discharge of theUniversity's responsibility as an awarding body inassuring the academic standards of its awardsmade through collaborative arrangements.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoketo members of staff of the University, and reada wide range of documents relating to the waythe University manages the academic aspects ofits collaborative provision. As part of theprocess, the team visited four of the University'spartner organisations in the UK where it metstaff and students, and conducted equivalentmeetings by video-conference with staff andstudents from an overseas partner organisation.

The words 'academic standards' are used todescribe the level of achievement that a studenthas to reach to gain an award (for example, adegree). It should be at a similar level acrossthe UK.

'Academic quality' is a way of describing howwell the learning opportunities available tostudents help them to achieve their awards. It isabout making sure that appropriate teaching,support, assessment and learning resources areprovided for them.

The term 'collaborative provision' is taken tomean 'educational provision leading to anaward, or to specific credit toward an award, ofan awarding institution delivered and/orsupported and/or assessed through anarrangement with a partner organisation' (Codeof practice for the assurance of academic qualityand standards in higher education, Section 2:Collaborative provision and flexible and distributedlearning (including e-learning) - September 2004,paragraph 13, published by QAA).

In a collaborative provision audit bothacademic standards and academic quality arereviewed.

Outcome of the collaborativeprovision audit

As a result of its investigations, the audit team'sview is that:

broad confidence can reasonably beplaced in the soundness of the University'spresent and likely future management ofthe academic standards of its awardsmade through collaborative arrangements

broad confidence can reasonably beplaced in the present and likely futurecapacity of the University to satisfy itselfthat the learning opportunities offered tostudents through its collaborativearrangements are managed effectively andmeet its requirements.

The team also concluded that reliance couldreasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity,completeness and frankness of the informationthat the University publishes and authorises tobe published about the quality of theprogrammes offered through collaborativeprovision that lead to its awards and about thestandards of those awards.

Features of good practice

Of the features of good practice noted in thecourse of the collaborative provision audit theteam noted the following in particular:

the arrangements established for thedevelopment and management of theStrategic Partnerships

the development and implementation ofoperations manuals for individualprogrammes and partners

the staff development opportunitiesoffered to staff at partner organisationsand the scope of the events organised byschools and centrally by the University.

Collaborative provision audit: summary

page 1

Recommendations for action

The team also recommends that the Universityconsider further action in a number of areas toensure that the academic quality ofprogrammes and the standards of awards itoffers through collaborative arrangements aremaintained.

Recommendations for action that is advisable:

review the potential overreliance placedby the University on schools andprogramme boards both for day to dayliaison, and gathering information for theapproval of centres, and secures the moreactive involvement of appropriate staff inlearning and student support services inthe approval, monitoring and review ofcollaborative provision

put in place appropriate procedures toensure full and timely consideration ofrelevant information, including externalreview reports, at Quality Assurance Boardand other appropriate senior committees

review arrangements for the approval,monitoring and review of articulations toensure that the University can safeguardthe interests of students following suchprogrammes

at the earliest opportunity introduce therevised external examiner report templaterequiring examiners to distinguishbetween all the sites offering aprogramme

as a matter of priority enhance theStudent Information Tracking System toensure that, at a site specific level, there isprovision of data on student progression,retention and completion for bothmodules and programmes.

Recommendations for action that is desirable:

use its planned review of committees andgroups as an opportunity to reassess thelocation of responsibilities for themanagement and development ofcollaborative provision

develop a single, user-friendly andaccessible resource that brings together

existing procedures for collaborativeactivity to be used by staff in theUniversity and partners, to provide for ashared and clear understanding of therequirements and challenges ofcollaborative provision

develop a University-wide policy regardingits minimum requirements relating to thefrequency of visits by external examinersand University staff to partners and thereporting of those visits

build on its experience of reviewingstrategic partners to give carefulconsideration to the means by which theUniversity can periodically review all itspartners.

National reference points

To provide further evidence to support itsfindings, the team also investigated the usemade by the University of the AcademicInfrastructure which QAA has developed onbehalf of the whole of UK higher education.The Academic Infrastructure is a set ofnationally agreed reference points that help todefine both good practice and academicstandards. The findings of the audit suggestthat the University was making effective use ofthe Academic Infrastructure in the context of itscollaborative provision.

The audit included a check on the reliability ofthe teaching quality information, published byinstitutions in the format recommended by theHigher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE) in the document Information on qualityand standards in higher education: Final guidance(HEFCE 03/51). The audit team was satisfiedthat the information the University and itspartner organisations are currently publishingabout the quality of collaborative programmesand the standards of the University's awardswas reliable and that the University has madeadequate progress towards providing requisiteteaching quality information for its collaborativeprovision.


page 2

Main report

Main report1 A collaborative provision audit of theUniversity of Sunderland was undertaken from 3to 7 April 2006. The purpose of the audit was toprovide public information on the quality of theprogrammes offered by the University throughcollaborative arrangements with partnerorganisations, and on the discharge of theUniversity's responsibility as an awarding body inassuring the academic standards of its awardsmade through collaborative arrangements.

2 Collaborative provision audit issupplementary to the institutional audit of theUniversity's own provision. It is carried out by a process developed by the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) inpartnership with higher education institutions(HEIs) in England. It provides a separate scrutinyof the collaborative provision of an HEI withdegree-awarding powers (awarding institution)where such collaborative provision was too large or complex to have been included in itsinstitutional audit. The term 'collaborativeprovision' is taken to mean 'educational provisionleading to an award, or to specific credit towardan award, of an awarding institution deliveredand/or supported and/or assessed through anarrangement with a partner organisation' (Codeof practice for the assurance of academic qualityand standards in higher education (Code ofpractice), Section 2: Collaborative provision andflexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) - September 2004, paragraph 13,published by QAA).

3 In relation to collaborative arrangements,the audit checked the effectiveness of theUniversity's procedures for establishing andmaintaining the standards of its academicawards; for reviewing and enhancing thequality of the programmes leading to thoseawards; for publishing reliable informationabout its collaborative provision; and for thedischarge of its responsibilities as an awardinginstitution. As part of the process, the auditteam visited four of the University's partnerorganisations in the UK, where it met with staff and students, and conducted by video-conference equivalent meetings with staff andstudents from a partner organisation overseas.

Section 1: Introduction: theinstitution and its mission as itrelates to collaborative provision

4 The University of Sunderland was formed in1992 and has its origins in the School of Scienceand Art formed in 1860, the Municipal TechnicalCollege formed in 1903 and more recently theSunderland Polytechnic which was formed in1969 from a merger of the then TechnicalCollege, the School of Art and Design and theSunderland Teacher Training College.Collaborative provision is seen as a central activityto the University both in support of its strategicaims and in response to Government prioritiesand other external initiatives and drivers.

5 The University has, over the last twentyyears, developed a wide range of collaborativeprovision which is now delivered through avariety of models. The collaborative provisioncomprises approximately 4,300 full-time andpart-time students, of which 2,700 are UKbased and 1,610 overseas. There is currentlylittle collaborative activity in relation to researchdegrees. A major area of development has beenthe development of a strategic relationship withseven local further education (FE) colleges, theobject of which is to offer a range ofprogression pathways and educationalopportunities to under-represented groups.These relationships are governed by a StrategicPartnership Agreement between the Universityand each individual partner college. In additionit has partnership arrangements outside of theregion in 23 FE colleges, seven UK privateorganisations, and 65 overseas organisations ofwhich only 38 are currently active. The overseaspartnerships are located in some 23 countrieswith significant numbers in Malaysia, HongKong and the Middle East.

6 The University's academic portfolio isdelivered across five schools encompassing 13academic areas. All five schools are engaged incollaborations, with the most significantprovision being located in the Business School,and the School of Computing and Technology(CAT). Through its strategic partnershiparrangement with local FE Colleges theUniversity offers Foundation Degrees covering a


page 4

range of subjects including health and socialcare, sport, tourism, education, performing artsand computing. In total the University hasapproved 34 Foundation Degrees.

7 An institutional audit of the University bythe QAA took place in November 2004 whichexcluded collaborative provision. The reportidentified a number of recommendations forfurther action and the University is currentlyresponding to some of these issues including areview of its internal committee structure (seebelow, paragraph 17).

8 The University's strategic aims in respect ofcollaborative provision are:

'To offer a range of academic programmesand a learning environment which isattractive to both UK and overseasstudents and which, where appropriate,recognises the requirements of employers.

To foster and build mutually advantageousstrategic alliances with a number of localand regional partner colleges, and withother national and international partners,in order to offer a range of well supporteddemand-led learning opportunities.

To raise the educational aspirations ofpeople in the region and to offeraccessible and flexible learningopportunities to students from a widerange of backgrounds'.

The collaborative provision auditprocess

Background information

9 The published information available forthe collaborative provision audit included:

statistical data provided by the HigherEducation Statistics Agency (HESA), theHigher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE), Universities and CollegesAdmissions Service and the University itself

the information on the University'swebsite, including the prospectus andcourse handbooks

the report of the institutional auditundertaken by QAA in November 2004

access to the University's intranetproviding details of the arrangements formanaging collaborative provision,including the production of partnershipagreements and course handbooks.

10 The University and its partners providedQAA with:

the institutional Collaborative ProvisionSelf-evaluation Document (CPSED)

documentation associated with each ofthe partner institutions visited as part ofthe audit including the Memorandum ofAgreement, course approval reports,annual monitoring reports, monitoringvisit reports, and external examiner reports

various handbooks relating to the deliveryof specific programmes delivered throughcollaborative provision

the University's Corporate Plan for theperiod 2004-05 to 2009-10

specific documentation relating to theoperational aspects of the managementand delivery of collaborative provision -accessible through the University'sintranet.

11 During the audit visit the audit team wasgiven access to a range of the University'sinternal documentation including committeeminutes, monitoring and review reports, andother material relating to the 'desk-based'studies undertaken as part of the collaborativeaudit.

12 Following a preliminary meeting at theUniversity in August 2005 between a QAAassistant director and representatives of theUniversity and students, QAA confirmed inJanuary 2005 that four partner visits, inaddition to one virtual visit with an overseaspartner, would be conducted between thebriefing and audit visits. The Universityprovided its CPSED in November 2005. TheUniversity provided QAA with briefingdocumentation in March 2005 for each of theselected partner institutions including

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 5

documentation relating to internal reviewwhere relevant.

13 A briefing visit was undertaken from 21 to 23 February 2006 for the audit team to gain a clearer understanding of the University'sapproach to collaborative provision and toexplore issues identified in the University'sCPSED and relating to the management ofquality and academic standards. At the close of this briefing visit, a programme of meetingsfor the audit was agreed with the Universityand details of the 'desk based' studies relatingto collaborative arrangements and the partnervisits were confirmed.

14 Visits to partner institutions, including twolocal strategic partners, a non-local FE Collegeand a managing agent took place between the briefing visit and the audit visit. A further'virtual visit' using a video-conference facilitywas undertaken with an overseas partnerduring the week of the audit visit. During thepartner visits members of the audit team metwith senior staff, teaching representatives andstudent representatives of the partnerinstitutions.

15 The collaborative provision audit tookplace between 3 and 7 April and involvedmeetings with senior staff, support service staff,administrative staff, programme leaders andchairs of relevant committees, involved in thedelivery of collaborative provision. Desk basedstudies relating to three overseas partners, aprivate UK College and a managing agent werealso undertaken.

16 The audit team comprised Professor B AAnderton, Professor P W Bush, Professor J C PRaban, Professor D Morton, and Mr G Sara. Theaudit secretary was Ms D S Cooper. The auditwas coordinated for QAA by Ms N J Channon,Head of Operations, Reviews Group.

Developments since the institutionalaudit of the awarding institution

17 The last institutional audit took place inNovember 2004 and the report was publishedand officially made available to the University

in May 2005. The audit team, therefore,acknowledges that insufficient time had elapsedbetween the publication of the institutionalaudit report and the preparation of the CPSEDfor any of the outcomes to be significantlytaken into consideration by the University.

18 The report noted as features of goodpractice the University's use of SchoolConferences, the use of teaching and learningfellowships, the maintenance and enhancementof learning support resources and the quality of support for students with special needs.

19 The report also identified a number ofrecommendations for action. These included:the role of the Academic Board in ensuringclarity in the articulation and operation of its policy; a refinement of the university'sdefinitions of quality assurance and qualityenhancement; a greater degree of criticalanalysis by the Academic Board in relation to the annual monitoring process; a moreexplicit use of statutory and regulatory bodyaccreditation reports; improved mechanisms forthe collection and analysis of student feedback;the enhancement of management informationand data analysis; an assurance of theequivalence of student experience for studentsregistered on the Joint Honours Scheme; and a review of personal support for students.Where these recommendations were relevant to collaborative provision, they have beenreferred to elsewhere in this report.

Section 2: The collaborativeprovision audit investigations:the awarding institution'sprocesses for qualitymanagement in collaborativeprovision

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision

20 The CPSED stated that the quality of theUniversity's programmes, and the standards ofthe awards to which they lead, are assured


page 6

through its formal arrangements for the design and approval of taught programmes,quinquennial reviews, rigorous assessmentpolicies and procedures, standardisedregulations, and the external examiner system.The University currently maintains only twocollaborative arrangements for the delivery of research degrees, and these are managedthrough the Graduate Research School withaccountability to the Research Committee.

21 The University employs five 'models ofcollaboration'. These models reflect three typesof engagement between the University and itspartners. The first comprises provision which is validated by the University (Model A); in the second, the partners' responsibilities areconfined to programme delivery andassessment, with the University assuming amoderating role (Models B and C); and thethird type consists of provision in whichdelivery is based on materials designed by the University, with the latter retainingresponsibility for assessment and providing foran element of tutor support (Models D and E).There are particular approval, monitoring andreview processes associated with each model,and the University is beginning to utilise'operations manuals' to specify theresponsibilities of its schools and their partnerorganisations (see below paragraph 45).

22 The University's arrangements for assuringthe quality and standards of its collaborativeprovision are also determined by two furtherdistinctions. These are between HEFCE-fundedprovision within the United Kingdom andpartnerships with private and overseasorganisations and, within the first category,between the University's 'strategic' partnershipsand its collaborations with other furthereducation colleges which are largely placedoutside the Region. With the exception ofModel A provision, schools have been granteddelegated responsibilities for the approval of anexisting partner to deliver additionalprogrammes at the same or lower level, and toapprove new partner colleges within the UKpublic sector. New partnerships with overseasor private sector organisations must be

approved by a University panel, althoughexisting partners within these categories maybe approved by schools to run additionalprogrammes for Model D delivery. The auditteam also learned that currently the Universitywill not approve non-strategic partners todeliver provision in areas where it does notitself possess the relevant academic expertise.

23 In the CPSED, the University expressed theview that its models provide 'a framework thathas worked well in practice…and has helped tounderpin and manage collaborative delivery'.The various distinctions employed by theUniversity were generally well-understood bythe staff that were met by the audit team(including senior staff drawn from theUniversity's partner organisations). The teamnoted, however, that the University's fivemodels did not include articulationarrangements and that this form ofcollaborative provision was discussed onlybriefly in the CPSED (see below, paragraph 55).

The awarding institution's frameworkfor managing the quality of thestudents' experience and academicstandards in collaborative provision

24 The CPSED described an array ofcommittees and groups with responsibility forthe management and enhancement of theUniversity's collaborative provision. AcademicBoard discharges its responsibilities throughfour subcommittees, including the AcademicProgrammes Committee (APC), the QualityAssurance Board (QAB) and the LearningEnhancement Board (LEB) although the auditteam noted that the LEB's terms of referencemake no specific reference to collaborativeprovision. The QAB is served by theCollaborative Provision (CPG) and FoundationDegree Groups (FDG). At school level, thecurrent committee structure comprisesProgramme and Module Boards, QualityAssurance Boards (SQABs), LearningEnhancement Boards and the recentlyestablished School Collaborative ProvisionGroups (SCPGs). In their discussions with theteam, staff from partner organisations stated


page 7

that they viewed the creation of SCPGs as animportant development, raising the profile ofcollaborative provision. The SCPGs varyconsiderably in terms of their size andconstitution, and at the time of the audit therewas no University-prescribed constitution andterms of reference for these groups. With theexception of the SCPG in one school, there isno provision for the representation of theUniversity's partner organisations on school orAcademic Board committees.

25 A Strategic Partnership Steering Group(SPSG) stands alongside this structure. Theconstitution of SPSG provides for therepresentation at senior level of the University'sseven strategic partners. The SPSG isaccountable to the Executive Board and it isserved inter alia by the Quality Assurance andEnhancement and the Learning Resourcessubgroups. The terms of reference of the SPSGinclude responsibility for 'developing andimplementing strategies in relation to…qualityenhancement, curriculum development, staffdevelopment (and) learner support andguidance…'. The remit of the Quality Assuranceand Enhancement Sub-Group includes 'topromote a better understanding of each others'quality assurance processes' and 'to facilitategreater consistency of quality assuranceprocesses across the partnership'. Although apart of the executive structure, the final item in the subgroup's terms of reference is 'toadvise…, where relevant, the senior qualitycommittees in each partner on issues relating to quality assurance and enhancement ofcollaborative programmes…'.

26 In addition to these committees andgroups, contributions to the management of the University's collaborative provision aremade by the University's International andEducational Partnerships Offices (EPO). Seniorstaff informed the audit team that, havingrecognised a need to improve the University'sresponsiveness to its partners, the creation ofthe EPO provided an important facility forpartners if they should encounter problems thatthey cannot resolve with the University'sSchools or other departments. While the EPO

coordinates the University's relationship with all HEFCE funded partners, other partnerships(including overseas collaborations) aremanaged through Schools supported by thecentre. The International Office is responsiblefor the oversight of overseas and UKcommercial off-campus provision with aparticular focus on contractual matters,financial and legal aspects, and providingadvice to schools on potential partnerships andmodes of delivery. It also manages the networkof University offices which are responsible forassisting in the support and development ofoff-campus activities.

27 The complexity of the committee andgroup structure was acknowledged by seniorstaff in their discussions with the audit team.However, the team was informed that thecoordination of the various committees andgroups was facilitated by cross membership;that communications between the SPSGsubgroup for Quality Enhancement and QABand CPG is informally maintained through theinvolvement of key individuals; and that APCperforms a pivotal role coordinating thedeliberative and executive processes. At thetime of the audit, Academic Board wasembarking on a review of the committeestructure. The planned review does notspecifically address the complexity of theUniversity's arrangements in relation to itscollaborative provision. The team concluded,however, that this review could provide theUniversity with an opportunity to reassess the location of responsibilities for both themanagement and enhancement of itscollaborative provision, and to clarify therelationships between the various groups and committees within its executive anddeliberative structures.

28 The University's framework is characterisedby the devolution to schools of significantresponsibilities for the management of itscollaborative provision with the role of suchcentral departments as the Quality Assuranceand Enhancement Unit (QAEU) being describedas 'advisory' and 'supportive'. As the guidanceissued by the University on such matters as


page 8

moderation and the peer observation ofteaching does not specifically address theparticular challenges presented by collaborativeprovision, there is considerable emphasis on theexpertise and commitment of Universityprogramme leaders and the quality of theirrelationships with the assistant programmeleaders who are employed by the partner, toaddress these challenges successfully. In itspartner visits and in its discussions withstudents, the audit team obtained someevidence suggesting that the strength of therelationship between the University and itspartners varied from school-to-school and fromprogramme-to-programme.

29 The CPSED stated that '…the liaisonbetween programme leaders at the Universityand their counterparts in partner colleges hasbeen strengthened…' over the years. In the caseof the University's strategic partners, efforts arebeing made to enhance communicationsbetween middle managers, building on theestablished relationships at programme andsenior executive levels. For Model D partners in the School of Computing and Technology,centre managers have been appointed tosupplement communication at programme level.The audit team learned that the University is alsoseeking to strengthen the relationships betweenits own staff and those in its partnerorganisations who are at corresponding levels of responsibility in the various support services.While it was apparent that these relationshipshad been successfully established for thestrategic partner colleges within the University'sregion, and that in this respect the SPSG and its Learning Resources Sub-Group played animportant role, the team was informed that forthe majority of model B, C and D partnerships,assessment of the adequacy of learning resourceswas reliant on work undertaken at school level.The team would wish to encourage theUniversity to extend its efforts to secure themore active involvement of staff in learning andstudent support services, thereby reducing itsreliance on communications betweenprogramme teams.

30 The audit team sought to establishwhether the University's arrangement with amanaging agent visited by the team risked afurther attenuation of the relationships betweenschools and partner organisations and,ultimately, between staff with responsibility forthe delivery of programmes and AcademicBoard and the QAB. The University hasmaintained an arrangement with the agent forsome four years, with the latter serving initiallyas an academic centre in its own right andmore recently as the managing agent for theModel D provision offered by the BusinessSchool. Although one partner organisationreported a weakening of its relationship withthe Business School following the appointmentof the managing agent to work with it, therewas little evidence to suggest that this concernwas more widely shared. The team wasinformed that the role performed by themanaging agent is largely (and entirely forpostgraduate provision) confined toadministrative matters, and that the BusinessSchool maintains direct contact with its deliverycentres. The relationship between theUniversity, the managing agent and the centreswas described as 'triangular' and the activeengagement of the school in this relationshipwas confirmed by the relevant agreements andoperations manuals.

31 The University has developed a complexframework for managing the quality andstandards of its collaborative provision. Theprocedures associated with each of the fivemodels of collaboration are qualified by theadditional requirements that apply to thevarious types of partner organisation. The moredetailed guidance and direction offered bycentral departments is in some cases non-prescriptive and non-specific in its applicationto the University's collaborative arrangements.There is a large number of committees andgroups with responsibility for the managementof partnerships, and these are located bothwithin the executive and deliberative structuresand at University and school levels. The auditteam concluded that the complexity of thisframework, together with the extent to which itentails a substantial delegation of responsibilities


page 9

to schools and their programme leaders, woulddemand a high level of understanding andengagement on the part of those staff who are charged with the responsibility of managingthe University's large and diverse portfolio ofcollaborative arrangements.

32 The University procedures are updated atleast annually and are distributed, in hard copyformat, to schools, as well as being posted onthe web. It was apparent to the audit team thatthe procedures were generally well understoodby staff and that the recent introduction ofoperations manuals as a requirement for all newcollaborative provision provides a useful meansof clarifying the particular responsibilities of staffboth within the University and in its partnerorganisations. The team also noted that a singleset of guidelines and regulations had been issuedfor the approval and review of FoundationDegrees. The team concluded, however, thatstaff understanding of the University's strategyfor the management of its collaborativeprovision, and the rationale that governs itsvarious procedures and structures, was largelydependent on the effectiveness of its staffdevelopment programme and the strength ofthe working relationships that have beenestablished between the QAEU and school-basedadministrative staff. The University may thereforewish to augment the action that it has taken toensure a shared and clear understanding of thechallenges posed by collaborative arrangements,by bringing together its existing procedures intoa single, user-friendly and accessible resource foruse by its own staff and by those in its partnerorganisations.

The awarding institution's intentionsfor enhancing the management of itscollaborative provision

33 The University stated in its CPSED that theenhancement of academic quality comprisesthree main components: continuous, proactiveimprovement of the learning experience; costand time effective management and academicmanagement systems and processes; andappropriate and timely professionaldevelopment for all who facilitate learning.

34 The CPSED recognised that this strategywill require that University Boards and otherstructures be kept under review. The last fiveyears have seen several changes in thesestructures, including the establishment of CPG,FDG, the International Office and the EPO, and, at the school level, the establishment of aSCPG. The CPSED also indicated that there is alink between the CPG and staff developmentthrough the Academic DevelopmentCoordinator who is a member of CPG. TheCPSED noted that any inconsistencies ofoperations in different schools are beingaddressed by regular meetings between theChairs of SCPG and the Head of the QAEU.

35 The University described the role that theInternational Office plays in providing a centraloversight over the off-campus activities andsupporting schools in developing their overseasprovision. Although this support includes helpwith the development of business plans, theCPSED noted that business planning still needsfurther development to make it more firmlylocated in the schools. The audit team notedthat business planning is becoming morefocussed within the University with the resultthat it is now starting to look at therationalisation of its collaborative provision.

36 The University explained that animportant element of its enhancement agendais the Strategic Partner College network, andthis is supported by the Strategic PartnershipSteering Group. This group has developed aQuality Assurance and Enhancement subgroupwhich provides an interface which spans thesenior institutional level, operationalmanagement and programme level. Therepresentatives of colleges within the StrategicPartnership group were positive about thesupport given to them through the SPSG. Theaudit team noted however that a similar groupdid not exist for partners who were not part ofthe Strategic Group and the University mightwish to consider whether there are ways inwhich the benefits of such support might beextended to the wider group of partners.


page 10

37 The CPSED indicated that the CPG hasworked to coordinate and further developquality assurance processes and procedures, aswell as carrying out an annual review ofcollaborative activity and the dissemination ofgood practice. Guidelines relating tomonitoring and external examiner reportinghave been modified to make collaborativemonitoring more explicit. While the audit teamnoted some instances of collaborative activitiesbeing clearly identifiable in annual reporting,there were also instances where theperformance of students in the partners wasnot easy to disaggregate from the entire course. The CPSED acknowledgedthat there is a commitment to increasing theevaluative dimension. The team would supportthis view and would encourage the Universityto give this issue a high priority particularly aspart of the enhancement of the University'sinformation system (SITS).

38 The audit team noted that the Universityorganises conferences for its partners each year.In addition to this some schools also organisetheir own conferences. The conferences appearto be well supported and a wide cross sectionof partners attended. Other direct contacts withpartners include visits by staff to each partner.There were examples of the effectiveness ofthese visits being increased by staff becomingmore involved in delivery of part of the courseduring the visit.

39 The audit team formed the view that,although many of the developments that hadtaken place were to be welcomed, there wasnot substantial evidence of developments beingpart of an overall strategy for enhancement asmany of the developments were introduced inresponse to a particular problem or initiativerather than as part of a proactive planningprocess. Consequently the University may wishto develop further its view for the future of itscollaborative provision to enable it to drivedevelopments towards its stated objectives.

The awarding institution's internalapproval, monitoring and reviewarrangements for collaborativeprovision leading to its awards

40 The assurance of the quality and standardsof the University's collaborative provision isgoverned by the same principles that apply to its on-campus provision. However, theprocedures have been adapted to includeadditional requirements for approval,monitoring and review of partners and, asappropriate, the delivery of programmesoverseas. The University's CPSED stated thatthese processes are consistent with all theprecepts of the QAA Code of practice, and that approval and review panels ensure thatdocumentation is aligned with The frameworkfor higher education qualifications in England,Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ).

Partner and programme approval41 The procedures for partner approval vary according to the proposed model ofcollaboration, the extent to which theUniversity has prior experience of collaboratingwith the partner organisation, and whether the partner is located within the UK public or private sectors and/or overseas. Theseprocedures allow schools to undertake theapproval of an existing partner to deliveradditional programmes and to approve newpartner colleges within the UK public sector. All other partnerships must be approved by a University panel.

42 Partnerships are usually initiated byschools and the audit team was informed bysenior staff that the remit of APC had beenrecently expanded to enable it to act as the'gatekeeper' for such proposals. The CorporatePlan sets out a strong rationale for theUniversity's commitment to the building ofregional partnerships and it was apparent to the audit team that this governs newdevelopments within the network of strategicpartners. In addition, Academic Board hasrecently given careful consideration to the risks associated with the negotiation of newcollaborative programmes in areas outside


page 11

the University's expertise. The team observedthat appropriate action is being taken tomanage these risks (see above, paragraph 22).The team noted, however, that initiatives thatdo not involve the strategic partners are notclosely prescribed by University policies andcriteria.

43 In its meetings with senior staff, the auditteam was informed that the University was inthe process of adopting 'a risk approach' for itsinitial consideration of proposals, and that thiswould inform its decisions on the level ofscrutiny that would be required in thesubsequent approval process. It was apparent,however, that the current method ofassessment focuses on business rather thanacademic risks, and that it was only in the caseof proposals for Model B delivery by overseasand private sector partners within the UK that a formal risk assessment is undertaken by aUniversity panel prior to the programmeapproval process. The school-based staff met bythe team were less clear about the nature andpurpose of this exercise. The scope of a riskassessment report prepared by one school inpreparation for the approval of an overseaspartnership was limited to those matters thatwould normally be considered in aconventional due diligence investigation. Theteam noted that the University's guidance onthe assessment of risk assumed that proposalsfor partnership with UK further educationcolleges, because they are subject to OfSTEDand ALI inspection, do not require a separateinstitutional approval exercise.

44 The University was revising some of itsprocedures for the approval of partners at thetime of the audit. Once an outline proposal hasbeen completed, schools prepare site reportsproviding information on the character of theproposed partner and its operating context, itsphysical and learning infrastructure, staffingand staff development, management structures,quality assurance systems and administrativearrangements. In the case of new partners asmall panel will then visit the organisation anda report will be submitted to CPG. There wasconsiderable variation in the level of detail

provided in the site visit reports seen by theaudit team, and in the apparent thoroughnessof the investigations conducted by schools. Theteam learned that staff from the relevant centralservices were rarely involved in the preparationof these reports or participated in the panelsthat subsequently visited new partners. Havingnoted the importance of these reports and visitsin assuring the University of a proposedpartner's capacity to fulfil its responsibilities forthe delivery of a programme, the team wouldwish to encourage the University to considersecuring the routine and active involvement of staff, in its learning and student supportservices, and in its procedure for the approvalof partners. In so doing, the University shouldconsider the advisability of reducing thereliance it places on staff at programme levelfor gathering the information it requires for theapproval of partners in general, and of newcentres for the delivery of Model D provision.

45 Approval of new collaborativeprogrammes follows the University's usualprogramme approval procedures. The processis concluded by the signing of a Memorandumof Agreement. Memoranda are drafted by asenior quality officer and are approved by therelevant panels or boards as part of theapproval or review of partners and collaborativearrangements. The associated financialmemorandum is prepared by the InternationalOffice for overseas and non-HEFCE fundedpartnerships, or by the Educational PartnershipsOffice for UK HEFCE funded partnerships. The memoranda of agreement that were seenby the audit team provided an appropriatespecification of the responsibilities of theUniversity and its partners for the managementand quality assurance of collaborativeprogrammes. The University has nowintroduced a requirement that theseresponsibilities should be explicitly stated, on a course-by-course basis and in some detail,within operations manuals. This is a feature of the University's arrangements for themanagement of its collaborative provision thatis still at an early stage of development for allUK FE partners, having first been introduced tosupport its new Foundation Degree provision.


page 12

Although the examples seen by the team variedin terms of their user-friendliness and theirvalue in providing staff with the detailedinformation that they would require indischarging their responsibilities, the teamidentified this development as an example of good practice.

46 As it develops its risk managementapproach to the identification of partners, and its approval processes, the University maywish to consider ensuring a clearer and morestreamlined approach for each process, and in particular, a more defined strategy forpartnerships outwith the strategic partnercolleges. This would have the benefit of makingthe expectations clearer for all staff involved in the process and of ensuring that itsrequirements are met.

Annual monitoring47 The University requires that all annualmonitoring reports should address feedbackfrom students and external examiners andinclude a commentary on student achievement.The character of these reports and theresponsibility for their production vary accordingto the model of delivery. While partnerorganisations delivering Model A programmesproduce a full annual monitoring report, morespecifically focused reports are produced by thepartners delivering Model B, C and D provisionand these are incorporated within theprogramme report prepared by University staff.It is only in the case of Model E provision thatpartner organisations are not required tocomplete an annual monitoring report.

48 The University's CPSED stated thatoverseas partners offering Models B-D provisionare visited by University staff at least once ayear for the purpose of checking facilities. Staffare also required to meet separately withstudents and tutors. Site visit reports are alsoproduced annually for UK based Model B and Cpartners. The team was furnished with someexamples of visit reports which provided auseful additional source of information forannual monitoring purposes. Although theserequirements were confirmed in discussionswith senior staff, the audit team was

subsequently informed that there is noUniversity-wide policy on the frequency of visitsto partners, and that the nature and pattern ofvisiting is determined by individual schools. Theteam would encourage the University todevelop an institution-wide policy setting outits minimum requirements relating to thefrequency of visits by staff, and the means bywhich the outcomes of these visits should bereported.

49 Annual monitoring reports are scrutinisedby SQABs and schools are required, in turn, toinclude a commentary on their collaborativeprovision in their annual report to theUniversity QAB. School reports are alsoconsidered by the University's CPG which isresponsible for identifying any general issuesthat have arisen in the course of the annualmonitoring process. CPG's annual reports tothe QAB are then based partly on itsconsideration of schools' annual reports, andpartly on the contributions made by thosemembers of QAB who participate in the schoolmonitoring process. According to the CPSED,the involvement of the latter in school-levelannual monitoring provides QAB with anassurance of the effectiveness of the process atthat level. It is the view of the University that'the combination of (these) measures hasproduced a robust process which has seen asteady overall improvement in monitoring andreporting of collaborative provision toUniversity level'.

50 The audit team concluded, however, thatthe effectiveness of the University's annualmonitoring procedure could be impeded bytwo factors. The first is the protracted nature ofthe process: SQABs consider annual monitoringreports in the January or February following theacademic year to which they refer, and it is notuntil March that school annual reports areconsidered by the University QAB. The secondfactor is the progressive filtering of information,as annual monitoring reports proceed throughthe various levels of consideration. The CPSEDacknowledged that the visibility to QAB ofproblems that may arise in particularpartnerships might be reduced by the non-


page 13

evaluative nature of partners' annual reports,and this was an issue that had attracted somecomment in the 2004 audit. While the teamwas satisfied that the University is takingappropriate action to address this aspect of theproblem, the minutes of school and Universitylevel committees did not provide a consistentlyfull and reliable record of matters that had beenraised at programme level. It was apparent thatin the current academic year only some schoolCPGs and QABs had given detailedconsideration to annual monitoring reports, andfew, if any, SQABs had formally approved theirschool annual reports. The annual reportsthemselves varied in terms of the extent towhich they included specific information andevaluative comment relating to schools'collaborative provision and the issues raised by the University CPG had not been explicitlyaddressed by QAB. It is recommended,therefore, that the University reviews its annualmonitoring process to ensure the full andtimely consideration of relevant information by the Quality Assurance Board.

Periodic review51 The University's quality assuranceprocedures include a document which sets out its requirements for the review of its relationshipswith UK based partner organisations. Thisdocument was published in 2003 and it providesfor the comprehensive review by Universitypanels of both partner organisations and theprovision that they offer. The other proceduraldocuments considered by the audit team hadbeen published more recently and theysuggested that the University's arrangements forperiodic review were still being developed. Theperiodic review procedures described by theCPSED dealt mainly with the incorporation within the quinquennial review of Universityprogrammes of the associated collaborativeprovision, and the ways in which this draws uponannual monitoring reports. The periodic review of provision that is delivered in accordance withModels A to C were said to involve meetings withsenior and teaching staff in partner organisations,and with representative groups of students. TheCPSED also recorded that interim reports on new

Model B provision must be produced six monthsafter approval, and that the University hasembarked on a series of institutional reviews of its local strategic partners.

52 In October 2005 CPG considered a paperthat proposed that the University undertakesfull partner reviews for all Model A-C provisionand that schools review those of its partnerswhich deliver Model D provision. The auditteam was informed that these proposals hadnot yet been approved by QAB, and it wasapparent that they did not provide for thedirect involvement of staff from the Universitycentral services. It was concluded that theUniversity could build upon the experience ithas gained in reviewing its strategic partners to consider the means by which it could furtherdevelop its arrangements for the periodicreview of all its partners.

Articulation arrangements53 The University defines articulation as a'credit-rating and transfer agreement betweentwo institutions, one of which agrees to recogniseand grant specific credit and advanced standingto applicants from a named programme of studypursued in the other'. Although the University hasmore than 130 articulation agreements, this kindof arrangement is not encompassed within its fivemodels.

54 Full responsibility for all aspects of thequality assurance of articulation arrangements is assigned to Programme Studies Boards(PSBs). PSBs map the curriculum and learningoutcomes of the external programme againstthe relevant University provision. They are then required to monitor the subsequentperformance of students following theiradmission to the University programme. Theaudit team was informed that the Universityregards this type of collaborative provision aspresenting a low level of risk, and thatadditional support can be provided for studentsif difficulties should become apparent. TheUniversity's guidance on the monitoring of theprogrammes that lead to admission to its ownprovision states that PSBs will 'need to ensurethat the external programme continues to beappropriate for the credit awarded', and it


page 14

suggests that one member of the PSB shouldproduce a short annual report on theprogramme. However, it appeared to the team that this requirement is not universallyobserved, and staff confirmed that theUniversity relies on the monitoring of students'subsequent performance for an assurance of the continuing appropriateness of itsarticulation agreements. The team also learnedthat while one school had adopted the practiceof moderating the assessment of externalprogrammes, this initiative had been promptedby a request from two of the school's partnersrather than being required by the University.The periodic review of articulationarrangements is included in the review of the relevant University programmes.

55 The audit team observed that the viabilityof the University's current arrangement for themonitoring of its articulation arrangements isdependent on the effectiveness of its StudentInformation Tracking System (SITS), and that,as a consequence, in some cases action couldonly be taken some time after it had becomeapparent that students had failed to achieve the standard required for the University awardto which they had progressed. It wasconcluded therefore that the University should consider the advisability of reviewing its arrangements for the approval, monitoringand review of articulations to ensure that it cansafeguard the interests of students followingsuch programmes.

External participation in internalreview processes for collaborativeprovision

56 In its discussion of the University'sarrangements to secure external participation inits review processes, the CPSED focusedexclusively on the composition of programmeand partner review panels. External members ofprogramme review panels are selected for theirsubject expertise, and for their practical,professional or industrial experience.Professional or accrediting bodies will also berepresented, as appropriate. The reviews ofpartner colleges also include a senior member

of staff from another partner college offeringhigher education provision. The CPSED alsoemphasised the importance of consultationwith employers and Sector Skills Councils overthe development of Foundation Degrees, andthe inclusion of external members with relevantexpertise on panels that are convened toconsider proposals for flexible and distributedlearning programme. The evidence available tothe audit team indicated that similar andappropriate arrangements are made forexternal participation in the University'sprogramme and partner approval processes.

External examiners and their reportsin collaborative provision

57 External examiners reports are viewed bythe University as an important element in itsquality assurance systems, and all Universityprogrammes are required to have externalexaminers. The 2004 institutional audit reportnoted that the University made 'effective use' ofexternal examiners, took their input seriously,acted on the reports conscientiously, and usedthem in the programme monitoringarrangements. The 2004 report of thepartnership between the University andLondontec International Computer School SriLanka reported the audit team's view that theassessment processes were secure. Externalexaminers are normally nominated throughrecommendations from the appropriate SQABto QAB, although the initial nominations forModel A partnerships are normally from thepartner and then into the SQAB. Where anexaminer has appropriate expertise but noexamining experience, appointment is normallyconditional on the examiner working alongsidea more experienced external in the first yearand/or attending an appropriate inductionevent. The same external examiners arenormally appointed across all partners involvedwith a particular programme, both on and off-campus. External examiners attend assessmentboards which are chaired by a senior academicstaff member of the University, cover on andoff-campus provision, and are held at theUniversity except for a validation partnershipwhen the board is hosted by the partner, there


page 15

is also one overseas partnership where approvalhas been given for the board to meet at thepartner. The external examiner reports that relateto collaborative provision are subject to the sameconsideration and action procedures that applyto all the University's external examiners' reports:they are submitted to QAE, are all read by theDeputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) who mayinstigate appropriate immediate action ifnecessary, and are considered by programmeteams who produce responses as part of themonitoring process. All partners in a Model Arelationship receive external examiner reportsdirect from the examiner, while the University,through a variety of routes, provides the reportsfor other partners.

58 In discussion with partners, the audit teamlearned that the external examiner systemoperated broadly as described in the CPSED.External examiners operating within a Model Arelationship had been nominated by thepartner and they submitted their reports to theUniversity and to the partner. It was reportedthat the external examiners worked closely withModel A partnerships, visiting the partner andmeeting some of the students. It appeared tothe team, however, that partners that alsodelivered non-validated programmes(sometimes in parallel with other partners)experienced differences in their relationshipswith external examiners. In a Model Arelationship, the partner received externalexaminer reports relating specifically toprogrammes offered at their site; with regard toa programme operating from the same partner,but in a Model B or C relationship, for example,the external examiner reports were generic,without identifying individual providers.

59 Partners reported that they receivedcopies of the formal external examiners'reports, although it appeared to the audit teamthat there was little consistency from whom thereports were received apart from programmesin a Model A relationship. These formal reportsrarely referred to individual sites althoughpartners are able to identify the progress oftheir own students individually from assessmentboard data. The audit team learned that

external examiners are asked to state whetherstandards set are appropriate for the award inthe light of national subject benchmarks, thenational qualifications framework, institutionalprogramme specifications and 'other relevantinformation'. They are also asked to commenton the 'appropriateness and consistency ofchallenges' across the various centres.According to the overview report on 2003-04external examiners' reports considered by CPGin June 2005, QSB in September 2005 andAcademic Board in December 2005, theexaminers were able to confirm the standardsof the University's awards and were broadlypositive about the management of collaborativearrangements. However, this report noted thatexaminers had not been invited to differentiateamong campuses, although some examinersdid; they rarely commented on the parity ofstandards across centres of activity, whether onor off-campus, and it was not always clear howexaminers sampled across the various sites. Inits consideration of this overview report, CPGagreed a need 'for more focussed and detailedreporting' that provided clear statements, interalia, specifying the site(s) reported upon anddifferentiating among them in terms of all thecategories of comments submitted; theselection of samples across all centres;information on visits made to delivery sitesduring the year, attendance at assessmentboards and meetings with students. The teamlearned that the external examiner report formhad been amended to include summaryinformation of the dates of visits to off-campussites, including meetings with students, and arequest for specific confirmation on mattersrelating to collaborative provision. Anopportunity to identify the specific sites towhich any of their comments referred was alsoincluded. The team learned that it was theUniversity's intention to introduce theseextended reporting arrangements from thesummer of 2006.

60 The audit team noted that the Universityprovides induction events, with which theassociate deans are involved, for all newexternal examiners and was told that it iscurrently reviewing the nature of the additional


page 16

materials to support the external examining ofcollaborative provision in the light of theexpected introduction of the new pro forma.

61 The audit team concluded that theUniversity's intention in this regard was apositive response to a comprehensive overviewreport, incorporating helpful recommendations,of the external examining of collaborativeprovision in session 2003/04. Thedevelopments outlined in the report wouldenable the University more speedily to takeappropriate action in the event of there beingany apparent disparity of standards across thevarious sites. The University is encouraged toconsider preparing such a report annually andto put in place arrangements that ensure thatkey committees, including Academic Board,consider the overview in a more timely fashionthan previously.

62 The audit team learned that some externalexaminers visited sites involving provision innon-model A relationships, although such visitswere less frequent. In CAT, and to a lesserextent in Business, there was an expectationthat external examiners would visit centres aftertwo years and then normally thereafter atintervals of three years, although there did notappear to be a University policy in this regard.The team discovered that some externalexaminers prepared a report, variouslydescribed by staff as informal or additional,after some of these visits. The team saw aselection of these which appeared to becomprehensive and understood that they wereusually considered at programme level as partof the annual monitoring process. These reportsseemed to the team to be a valuable additionto the evidence relating to both the quality andstandards of University provision at the partnersites concerned, and complemented both theformal reports from external examiners andreports from University staff undertakingmonitoring visits (see above paragraph 48). Itseemed to the team that, within the context ofthe various partnership models, the Universitywould benefit from codification of thefrequency of these visits, and the formalinclusion within the monitoring process ofconsideration of such site visit reports.

The use made of external referencepoints in collaborative provision

63 The 2004 institutional audit report foundthat the University was making appropriate useof the Academic Infrastructure, including theCode of practice, FHEQ, benchmark statementsand programme specifications. In addition, thereport on the link with Londontec concludedthat the quality assurance arrangements forthat partnership were broadly aligned with the Code and were operating as intended.

64 In the CPSED, the University reported thatit continued to make appropriate use of theFHEQ, the Code of practice, subject andFoundation Degree benchmark statements andProgramme Specifications. Initially, the Universityseeks to ensure that Academic Infrastructureissues are addressed at course approval or, in thecase of Model A relationships, at validation andthen at programme review. The Universitydevelops programmes through other modelarrangements within frameworks which havealready been referenced to the AcademicInfrastructure. CPG keeps under review theUniversity's application of that section of theCode relating to collaborative provision andflexible and distributed learning, and as a result,has recently made modifications to, for example,the wording on degree parchments andtranscripts for students studying with partnerinstitutions, to its procedures for checking ofpartners' publicity materials, and to its use ofindependent references for overseas partners.

65 In reviewing approval and reviewdocumentation, the audit team noted thatpanels were requested to comment on theprogramme's relationship to the FHEQ,appropriate benchmark statements andProgramme Specifications, and that somereports, including those relating to the approvalof Foundation Degrees with local partners,referred explicitly to these. Indeed, there wasevidence of panels referencing provision to the professional standards of professionalbodies where no formal benchmark statementwas available. The team learned that QAEroutinely checked approval and reviewdocumentation to see that appropriate action


page 17

had been taken in respect of the AcademicInfrastructure prior to panel consideration. It appeared to the team that support wasavailable in relation to external reference pointsto those preparing Model A programmes forvalidation. Indeed, the team noted evidence ina Model A relationship of proactive mapping bythe partner of its own provision against theCode of practice. However, more generally,knowledge of the operation of the AcademicInfrastructure, and in particular the FHEQ,seemed to be variable among the partnerswhom the team met, although at levels ofassistant programme leader and above therewas an appropriate understanding of theprinciples and operation of the Code. Partnersgenerally confirmed that they understood thatthe University's awards were referenced againstthe Academic Infrastructure at validation, butthey believed that the University was contentitself to monitor this thereafter. The staff atpartner institutions who were most familiarwith the Academic Infrastructure were on thewhole involved in a higher educationcoordinating role on behalf of their institution;it was this, rather than their membership ofspecific course or programme teams thatseemed to determine their familiarity with theAcademic Infrastructure. As it develops furtherits staff development programmes for partnercollege staff, the University may wish toconsider incorporating the various elements of the Academic Infrastructure, and theirreferencing to University/partner provision, asingredients in the development opportunitiesavailable.

Review and accreditation by externalagencies of programmes leading tothe awarding institution's awardsoffered through collaborativeprovision

66 The report of the 2001 Continuation Auditconcluded that the University may wish toconsider the desirability of 'considering furtherwhether it has sufficient central oversight ofprofessional and statutory body links at schoollevel'. This was followed by the report of the2004 QAA institutional audit which advised the

University to provide for the 'more explicitinstitutional consideration of professional,statutory and regulatory body accreditationreports' and to introduce 'a standard procedure'for responding to these reports.

67 The CPSED prepared for the current auditstated that the University is aware of therequirements of external inspection of UK FEcolleges and that it has recently incorporated a clause within its Memoranda of Agreementrequesting that each party informs the otherabout forthcoming inspections and providingdetails of the outcomes of such activities. Forthe small number of programmes which areaccredited by external agencies, representativesfrom relevant accrediting bodies are, wherepossible, invited onto the University approval orreview panels. In response to the report of the2001 Continuation Audit, the SQABs are nowrequired to receive all accreditation reports andto keep 'the centre' informed. Whileacknowledging the recommendation of the2004 audit, the CPSED re-stated the University'sbelief that oversight of these activities 'is moreappropriately and effectively carried out at(school) level', with the actions to be taken inresponse to these reviews being brought to theQAB for approval.

68 No reference was made in the CPSED tothe means by which the University considers andacts upon reports that have been produced byQAA academic and Foundation Degree reviewteams. A Major Review of the University'shealthcare provision, including programmesoffered by four partner organisations, wascompleted shortly before the current audit. TwoFoundation Degrees were reviewed in 2002 and2003, and six partner organisations wereinvolved in these exercises. QAA academicreviews of the University's collaborative provisionin Social Policy, Administration and Social Work,and in Business and Management wereconducted in 2004. The last exercise includedthe BA Business Studies (Distance Learning)which is delivered in four centres administeredby the University's partner.

69 The report on the academic review ofBusiness and Management noted the


page 18

'deficiencies' in the programme's qualityassurance arrangements that had beenidentified by the Business School andconcluded that 'the concerns identified aresufficiently serious as to raise questions aboutthe adequacy of the quality assurancemechanisms when applied to distance-learningprovision'. This report itself had not beenconsidered by the Quality Assurance Board nor,as far as the audit team could establish, by anyother committee at University level, although itis acknowledged that actions resulting from thereport were considered by CPG and QAB. Theteam was informed that the outcomes of QAAreviews of the provision offered by partnerorganisations were considered by theresponsible School, and that the outcomeswere reported subsequently to the QAB. TheUniversity did, however, supply evidencedemonstrating that the QAB had given fullconsideration to a QAA subject review that hadbeen undertaken in November 1999.

70 The stated purpose of therecommendations of the QAA audits was toenable the University to capture the intelligenceand evidence of good practice that is containedin the reports generated by external agencies.For this reason, and in view of the extent of thedelegated responsibilities assigned to schoolsfor the approval, monitoring and review ofcollaborative provision, the audit team wouldurge the University to ensure that reports fromexternal bodies are consistently considered at asenior level within its committee structure.

Student representation incollaborative provision

71 The CPSED indicated that students fromall collaborative programmes are invited toattend programme and module boards of studywhere it is feasible to do so. The CPSED alsonoted that attendance at these is variable.Although students have the opportunity toattend boards, this opportunity is most likely tobe taken up by students in the strategicpartners but even this is variable. Indeed, theaudit team did not discover many examples ofactual attendance of collaborative students at

boards of studies although there were isolatedexamples where the board was held at thepartner college. At the partner level theopportunities for students to have a voice,albeit informal, is more apparent. As many ofthe partners have a small number ofprogrammes, informal procedures are commonand a sample of student comments appears tosupport the effectiveness of this approach. Oneschool has a standard agenda item on its SQABwhere students can bring forward issues.However, the audit team saw no evidence thatthis opportunity had been used. Apart from thestandard entitlement to representation, theredoes not appear to be a consistent policy fromthe University to encourage participation bystudents at the level of the boards of study.

72 The CPSED described how studentrepresentatives are invited to meet with reviewpanels as part of the review process. Thisprovides a further opportunity for the Universityto be made aware of the views of students andis seen by the University as an important part ofthe process.

73 One way in which students studyingthrough partnership arrangements may berepresented is through the University's StudentUnion (SU). Students in partner colleges areentitled to membership of the SU. However, theaudit team heard that this is rarely taken upexcept for local students who may wish toobtain the additional benefits available from theSU. One exception to this relates to thestudents studying with a private partner, wherethere is no union, so students have availedthemselves of the opportunity to join theUniversity union.

74 The audit team was told that the SU isaware of the names of the collaborativepartners but there is no formal mechanism forthe University to inform the SU when there arechanges to the list of partnership arrangements.SU officers are represented on many boardsand committees of the University so have themeans to become aware of new developmentsbut as the SU officers change each year suchinformal arrangements do not ensure that theSU is able to maintain a consistent view of


page 19

partnerships. The SU does attempt to visit localpartners but this is often constrained by limitedUnion resources. The SU aims to coordinatevisits to partners with the students' inductionperiod for maximum effect and partner collegesare also sent the Union magazine for distributionto University students. The University's templatefor student handbooks describes the role of theSU and describes how students can takeadvantage of the links with the SU. However, the current structure does not provide sufficientsupport for the SU to fulfil the University'sintentions in this area. Therefore, the teamformed the view that the University might wishto consider how it might assist the SU in itsefforts to develop links with the partners and therole it can play in supporting the University'sstudents wherever they are studying.

Feedback from students, graduatesand employers

75 Currently the main formal mechanism forstudent feedback is by questionnaire and theUniversity has recently moved towardsstandardising these so that a more consistentand direct feedback from off-campus groupscan be obtained. The administration of thequestionnaires differs according to whether thepartner is overseas or UK based. Overseasquestionnaires are administered by visiting stafffrom the University when they make a routinevisit, whereas questionnaires in UK partners arenormally administered by the partner directly.The audit team noted some variations fromthis, particularly in some overseas partners,whereby students were completingquestionnaires more frequently. In most casesthese appeared to be locally developedquestionnaires and as they were not necessarilyinitiated by the University, they do not formpart of the formal process. Such localarrangements may be useful for the partner butthey may also result in the student being askedto complete questionnaires on a very frequentbasis. The team formed the view that, as theUniversity develops its strategy for gaining thegreatest value from student feedback, a moreintegrated system incorporating the bestelements of the various current arrangements

would help to simplify the process from astudent perspective, and would provide moreuseful data.

76 Feedback is summarised in the annualmonitoring process and the results arediscussed at the relevant board of studies.However, it was noted that the commentsprovided as part of the annual process werevariable in their extent. For example, while itmight be expected that partners or visitingtutors would wish to comment on the results ofparticular responses or on issues raised throughthe feedback process, there was no evidencethat this had happened to date.

77 The process of feedback to students onissues raised was more difficult to track as thereseems to be little evidence of formal reportinglines. In some colleges the feedback to studentsappeared to be very effective, and was usuallythrough the tutor in the partner college or thevisiting tutor. One school also used on-linemethods to provide feedback to students, butthis approach was not used in other schools. The feedback processes appeared to be moreeffective in the strategic partners as a result ofthe extent of the overall relationship and therelatively close geographical location of thepartner to the University. In the partners who are not part of the Strategic Partnership, theeffectiveness of the feedback process was morevariable.

78 The University has developed a newframework for student feedback which has beenimplemented in 2005-06. However, this will notapply to the collaborative provision until itseffectiveness has been monitored. It is thereforenot yet clear how the University framework willbe modified to suit the particular requirementsrelating to feedback from students in thecollaborative provision network.

79 The CPSED indicated that feedback fromon-campus graduates is gathered through theUniversity's Final Destination survey whichincludes students who commenced their studiesoff-campus. There is no current method ofgathering consistent feedback from graduatesfrom all collaborative programmes, although


page 20

the University does gather information frompartners where this is available.

80 The feedback from employers is variable.The CPSED stated that the University usesemployers for some approval and reviewevents, particularly in vocational programmes.However, the feedback from employers on thequality of existing programmes is limitedprimarily to programmes where students arerequired to undertake a placement, for examplein health-related professions.

81 The University is still developing reliableand consistent methods of gathering feedbackfrom students, graduates and employers. Theaudit team formed the view that additionalwork in this area would assist the University todevelop its strategic planning.

Student admission, progression,completion and assessmentinformation for collaborativeprovision

82 The 2004 institutional audit report notedthat while there was 'obvious evidence of adesire to investigate specific phenomena (for example, the comparative achievement,progression and completion of part and fulltime students) these were frustrated by theintractability of the information providedcentrally'. The report notes that a lack of easilyaccessible and useable data made it difficult totackle retention issues at local or institutionallevels. Accordingly, the report recommendedthat the University should prioritise theenhancement of management information and data analysis, and maximise the benefits ofsystems to address the acknowledged problemswith the quality of statistical data. As part of itsresponse, the University reported its intentionthat from 2006-07 management informationreports on all programmes, including those runin collaboration with partners, will be producedcentrally by the University AcademicInformation Services using the data in theStudent Information Tracking System (SITS).SITS was introduced in 2002-03. Although the University believes that it is capable ofproducing clearer, more comprehensive and

accurate student data than either itspredecessor, or the suites of locally produceddata that currently form the basis of retention,progression and completion analyses byprogramme teams, its implementation seems to be taking considerably longer than theUniversity had initially imagined. The auditteam concurs with the University's view that'cost and time-effective management andacademic management systems and processes'are a key component of academic qualityenhancement.

83 Although assessment marks are entereddirectly onto the central record system whenassessments are marked by University staff, therecord of module marks is held at the partnersite and the University when the Model requiresUniversity moderation of partner staff marking,and solely at the partner site where all themarking and moderation is undertaken bypartner staff. The University is now workingtowards a process where UK partners are ableto enter module assessments into the centralsystem. Statistical data on progression andcompletion, wherever held, are still generatedby assessment boards. The currentarrangements enable partner collegesaccurately to monitor the progress of their own students, irrespective of whether or notthey normally receive external examiner reportsrelating explicitly to their own cohort. However,these arrangements present challenges to theUniversity in terms of comparing progression,retention and completion data for similarmodules and programmes across sites and foraddressing such matters strategically. The auditteam learned that from the summer of 2006,Programmes Assessment Boards will be able torequest reports showing students by campus.Given the delays in introducing the SITS inrecent years, and particularly in the light of the University's decision in relation to externalexaminers reporting by campus (see paragraph59 above), the team concluded that theUniversity's developing retention policies would be more effectively informed by theprioritisation of the recording of both moduleand programme data for each site as well as for the programme as a whole.


page 21

84 Although all students following Universityawards, wholly or in part through a partnerinstitution, are formally students of theUniversity and, with the exception of thosefollowing Model A type programmes, areadmitted following University rather thanpartner criteria, the students are enrolled with the partner institution and usually seethemselves as belonging first to the institutionwhere they study rather than to the University.Decisions are made by schools for studentsenrolling through overseas and private UKcollaborative partners and by EPO for all off-campus students on HEFCE fundedprogrammes. Staff at the partner colleges,whom the audit team met, confirmed theirunderstanding of these arrangements andstudents reported their general satisfaction with admission arrangements confirming thatcorrespondence on admissions matters washandled by the partner institution. However,some students had apparently experienceddelays in the completion of the admissionsprocess in relation to their access to theUniversity's library facilities. The team learnedthat such delays were most likely to occur inrelation to students not applying through theUCAS scheme and that it was the University'sintention to reduce, as far as possible, anydifferences between the standards of enrolmentservices provided to students studying off andon-campus, a development which the auditteam would support.

Assurance of the quality of teachingstaff in collaborative provision;appointment, appraisal, support and development

85 The CPSED stated that University approvalis required for the curriculum vitae's (CV's) of all staff in partner institutions who delivercomponents of University programmes.Although there was variability between schoolsabout where the locus of responsibility lay forapproval, the audit team saw ample evidence of compliance with this requirement across allmodels of collaborative provision. Initially, staffinvolved in delivering programmes at partners

are approved at the same time as the centre isapproved for delivery of the programme. Anysubsequent changes require further approval.Partners are prompted to do this through thecentre's annual monitoring report and throughthe programme leader's annual visit. Typicallystaff are approved to teach specified modules inspecified modes of delivery, and changes wouldrequire further approval of the staff concerned.Approval should take place before staffcommence teaching. Current University policyrequires that staff teaching on Universitycollaborative provision, both in the UK andinternationally, should normally posses aqualification at a level at least equivalent to thatof the programme on which they are teachingand in a relevant discipline. A recently produceddraft policy statement which the audit team sawindicated that, in the future, partner staff whodeliver learning on the University's models A, Band C collaborative programmes would normallybe expected to hold qualifications at least onelevel higher than the programme on which theyare teaching, and also to have maintained thecurrency of their subject knowledge andscholarship at a similar level. For Model Dcollaborative provision the University will, infuture, expect qualifications and experienceequivalent to visiting lecturers delivering on-campus programmes.

86 As part of the University's Peer ReviewPolicy, schools are required to makearrangements for peer observation of off-campus staff. The CPSED indicated that the University would expect staff in UK-basedpublic sector colleges to hold teachingqualifications and to operate within a peerobservation process. Visits by the audit team to FE college partners of the University in theUK confirmed they had their own peer reviewsystems. In practice, schools have focused onoverseas partners and private colleges in theUK. The team was able to confirm that forthese partners, though the exact nature of theengagement showed some variance betweenschools, peer observation was undertakenduring centre visits made by the programmeleader and/or other University staff.


page 22

87 Staff development and support for partnerstaff, is considered when collaborativeprogrammes are approved, reviewed or aresubject to annual monitoring. The University'sCPG has suggested to QAB a number of waysin which the quality assurance of collaborativeprovision might be improved. This includesgiving greater prominence to staff developmentin the annual monitoring process. TheUniversity believes staff development is veryimportant in setting out its expectations ofpartner colleges. It seeks to provide staffdevelopment opportunities and to promotegreater engagement between college staff andsubject teams in the University. The Universityhas a long-standing policy of extending its staff development programme to partner staff.However a combination of geographicalseparation and difficulty in fitting attendance at staff development activities around teachingactivities has led to very little uptake of theseopportunities. As a result, staff development for partner staff has been primarily eitherprogramme and/or centre based andundertaken by schools.

88 A significant difference exists in terms ofstaff development between those local collegeswhich are strategic partners and the University'sother partners both in the UK andinternationally. The University took the decisionin 2004 that a proportion of its HEFCESupporting Professional Standards fundingwould be used to provide staff developmentopportunities for its seven Strategic PartnershipColleges. A range of activities was put forward to be managed by the Quality Assurance andEnhancement subgroup of the SPSG. Theopportunities created were publicised tostrategic partnership staff at an open eveningheld during 2005. They included PhDstudentships covering all fees for one member of staff from each college, research bursaries of£500 for one member of staff from each collegeto write up an aspect of evidence-based practicein connection with their Foundation Degreepartnership with the University, and anopportunity for college staff to take up a placeon the new MSc Learning Technologyprogramme to be delivered by means of flexible

learning. In addition, it was proposed to set up anew FE/HE Forum and to extend the University'sexisting Orientation Programme for new staff toinclude new strategic partner staff. This focusedpolicy on strategic partner colleges is currentlybeing implemented. The audit team was toldthat nine applications from college staff werecurrently being considered by the GraduateSchool. In addition, the University had a numberof applications for places on the new MScLearning Technology and for bursaries to write up good practice. The extension of theOrientation Programme to new strategic partnercollege staff was still under consideration. TheFE/HE forum had met in November 2005 andJanuary 2006 and a further session on ProgressFiles had been requested.

89 College Principals met by the audit team,who were members of the University's SPSG,identified the important role which the provisionof advice, support and staff developmentopportunities by the University played in thecreation of an HE environment in their colleges.While recognising they had primaryresponsibility for the development of their ownstaff, they identified a number of ways in whichstaff also received support from the University.These included access to the University's genericstaff development programme, topic-specificstaff development activities organised for localcollege staff and sessions for college supportstaff. The audit team regarded the staffdevelopment initiatives which the University hasdeveloped with its strategic partner colleges asan aspect of good practice.

90 The University also centrally provides anumber of other staff development activitiesopen to all its UK based partners. These includethe annual Academic Conference and theAnnual Collaborative Conference. In 2005 stafffrom 11 collaborative partner colleges werepresent at the latter including two collegesfrom outside the North-East. All schools holdannual school conferences open tocollaborative partner staff which provide anopportunity to share and disseminate goodpractice. CAT has held UK Colleges StaffTraining Events (with the most recent taking


page 23

place in June 2005) which have covered bothgeneric topics such as roles and responsibilitiesand also module-specific sessions. In 2004 staffattended from 12 colleges across the UK and in2005 from seven colleges. The Business Schoolheld an Open and Distance Learning PartnerConference in early 2006 with an academic andsocial programme extending over three days,and which was attended by staff from 25partner colleges, both in the UK and overseas,as well as by staff from the organisation whichadministers the Business School's Model Dprovision. Schools such as Education andLifelong Learning (ELL) and Arts, Design Mediaand Culture (ADMC), which have a strongregional focus in their collaborative provision,have undertaken staff development activitieslinked to assessment such as engagement inmoderation and joint assessment ofperformance-based activities.

91 For partner colleges in the rest of the UKand overseas, the predominant form ofcollaborative provision is Model D, for whichthe University provides guidance and trainingto partner college staff on the use of thelearning materials. The University's AcademicDevelopment Coordinator plays a central rolein this, leading and coordinating staffdevelopment activity and delivering staffdevelopment both directly and indirectly. Thisincludes working with Programme Leaders whohave a pivotal role in staff development forother UK and overseas collaborative provision.As well as supporting the locally based AssistantProgramme Leader, University ProgrammeLeaders undertake staff development activitieswith partner staff and carry out peerobservations. Overseas collaborative partnershave additional support in the form of a TutorSupport Guide designed to assist staffunfamiliar with current teaching practices in UKuniversities. It provides guidance on the use ofthe PowerPoint 'lectorial' materials provided bythe University and also on approaches to smallgroup teaching, giving academic guidance tostudents and project supervision. CD-ROMs onTeaching Small Groups and on Library Servicesfor Distance Learners have been developed foruse with overseas centre tutors. The University

acknowledges that it cannot replicate for itswider collaborative provision the very intensivestaff development relationship which it has withits Strategic Partnership colleges. Nevertheless,the audit team formed the view that theUniversity was making a positive effort toprovide staff development opportunities to allits collaborative partner staff, and it wassupported in this view by the University's recentStaff Satisfaction Survey of UK Partner Colleges(2005), which showed staff in other partnercolleges at least as satisfied with staffdevelopment opportunities as staff in thestrategic partner colleges.

Assurance of the quality ofdistributed and distance methodsdelivered through an arrangementwith a partner

92 The University introduced distancelearning provision in 1998 with a print-basedversion of its BA Business Studies programmefollowed shortly by a similar version of its BABusiness Information Technology. Initially thesewere offered as independent learning (what isnow Collaborative Model E), but later forcentre-based delivery in overseas markets (whatis now Collaborative Model D), where theUniversity provided learning materials andundertook all assessment, but centres providedstudents with library, computing resources andoptional tutorial support. The University'sLearning Development Services was responsiblefor the development of the learning materials,overseen by staff in the relevant Schools(Business and CAT).

93 Model D (Tutor Supported Delivery) and toa lesser extent Model E (Independent Learning)are the dominant forms of collaborativeprovision in overseas countries and in the UKpublic and private sector colleges outside theUniversity's regional network of colleges. ModelsD and E are mainly confined to the CAT andBusiness schools, but their operation in the twoschools is markedly different. In CAT the schooldirectly manages its collaborative links withindividual centres through University CentreLeaders who report to the Programme Board.


page 24

The Programme Leader has responsibility forcoordination and for ensuring comparabilitybetween different centres.

94 By contrast, the Business School nowoperates through a commercial organisationwhich acts as its managing agent for Model Dcollaborative provision. This organisationmanages a wide range of activities includingidentifying and recommending new studycentres, preparing study centres for theoperation of the programme in accordance with the operations manual, and ensuringcentres understand the requirements ofUniversity procedures and regulations, facilitatingapproval of study centre marketing material,facilitating student assessment and feedbackprocesses, and contract compliance andmonitoring. The organisation also provides aworldwide virtual campus to which students inthe centres have access. In the case of the BABusiness Management, staff employed by themanaging agent and approved by the Universityundertake marking of student assessments withmoderation by University staff. On-campus staffundertake all marking and moderation of theMBA programme managed by the managingagent. The University indicated that it maintainsoverall control of standards and quality throughapproval of all admissions to programmes, finalapproval of centres and of advertising material,and either moderation or marking ofassessments. The audit team sought to establishthe rationale for this arrangement. The Universityindicated particular benefits in terms of marketintelligence relating to development of newcollaborative partnerships, and the shifting of'back-office' functions to the managing agent. To support this arrangement, a new tripartiteMemorandum of Agreement has beendeveloped which outlines the relativeresponsibilities of each partner: the University,the managing agent and the delivery centre. The team was made aware that daily contact ismaintained with the managing agent at anadministrative level, regular review meetings are held with senior staff, and there is alsorepresentation of staff of the managing agent onUniversity committees. The team found that theeffect of the role of the managing agent was to

act as an intermediary between the Universityand the partners which had the effect of makingthe contact between some colleges and theUniversity more distant than a direct relationship.The University recognises this is a relatively newand significant arrangement which it continuesto keep under review.

95 The CPSED stated that the University'sCPG has considered the section of the QAACode of practice relating to collaborativeprovision and flexible and distributed learning,and that changes have been made to Universityprocedures to maintain their alignment withthe Code. An important aspect of theUniversity's approach to ensuring the qualityand consistency of its distance learningprovision is that it provides students at partnercentres with learning materials in addition tocontrolling assessment. Recent changes in theCAT Model D provision from video toPowerPoint lectures has placed moreresponsibility on partner college staff in thedelivery of teaching inputs. Materials areproduced with advice and support from theUniversity's Learning Development ServicesUnit. The audit team was told that in qualityassuring its flexible and distributed learningmaterials, the University seeks to ensure thatmaterial is up-to-date and factually correct andthat it adopts an appropriate pedagogicalapproach. There is provision for materials to bereviewed by subject and flexible learningspecialists, with SQABs having overallresponsibility for these activities. Programmeapproval panels are said to explore thesponsoring school's capacity to prepare, qualityassure and update learning materials. Panels areasked to give careful consideration to suchmaterials including sampling print and web-based learning resources. One consequence ofthe University's production of learning materialsis that delays may mean that off-campusprovision continues to operate under theprevious curriculum for up to two years afterprogramme review has introduced a newcurriculum for on-campus students.

96 Where a new centre for delivery of anexisting programme is being considered, a


page 25

senior member of staff will make an initial visitto the potential partner. The report from thisinitial visit supports completion of a proposalfor approval of a new partner. It covers localmarket conditions, resources to support theprogramme, financial and organisational statusof the partner, legal requirements (if outsidethe UK) and academic references (includingfrom other UK institutions which havepreviously had a collaboration with thepartner). Asked whether a member of staff with a specific learning-resources brief alsoparticipated in initial site visits, the Universityindicated that it would not be feasible.Approval is conducted by an internal Universitypanel the exact constitution of which dependson the nature of the new centre (UK FE oroverseas/private UK centre) and what is beingapproved (first approval or addition of a newprogramme to an existing centre). Approvalpanels wholly base their judgement on a rangeof documentary evidence, including the sitevisit report, the partner's response to anyidentified need for additional resources, staffCVs and independent academic references.While the audit team found these arrangementsto be satisfactory, it recommends that theUniversity gives further consideration to themore active involvement of staff in learningsupport services in the approval of new centresfor Model D provision.

97 Programme Leaders (in more complexprovision assisted by Centre Leaders) are themain point of contact between centres, theirstaff and students, and the University. There is an expectation that visits will be made tocentres supporting delivery of Model Dprovision, but there is not a University-widepolicy on the frequency with which theseshould take place. Schools have developed theirown (and different) policies with the CATschool operations manual requiring at least twovisits per year, and the Business School manualspecifying one quality assurance visit per year.Outside these visits, communications weremaintained by video-conferencing in the caseof all but one of the CAT's model D partners. In the case of the Business School, centres tendto focus their communications through the

managing agent, though they can also contactthe University directly. The University hasrecognised that external examiner reportsfrequently do not make comments which relateto specific collaborative provision. In order toaddress this, the University intends to introducea new External Examiner Report pro formawhich will give a stronger steer. It is alsoworking towards a rolling programme ofexternal examiner visits to Model D centres.The audit team urges the University toimplement these arrangements as a matter ofpriority. In relation to student progression andretention, for the moment annual monitoringrelies on statistical analysis undertaken bypartner colleges on assessment data providedby the University.

98 Library facilities in the delivery centres aresupplemented by access to the University's on-line library and information resources. UK-based students in Model D provision alsobenefit from postal book loans. The Universitylibrary has a distance learning coordinatorresponsible for developing resources andservices for off-campus students. These includeon-line registration, advice about the use of the ATHENS database and information skillstraining. Centre Leaders also have available aCD-ROM to use with centres, and in which the distance learning coordinator explains the services available to staff and students incentres and how to access them. In practice,how accessible on-line learning resources are to students will depend on local conditions.The audit team saw evidence that theUniversity was aware of the variability instudent experience which sometimes resultedfrom local conditions, and sought to supportpartner institutions to overcome these so far as it was possible to do so.

Learning support resources forstudents in collaborative provision

99 The University incorporates itsexpectations relating to the provision oflearning resources by partners into theMemorandum of Agreement. Academic staffwith relevant expertise are required to check


page 26

the learning resources prior to an approvalevent. If the validation process considers thatadditional resources are required the validationdecision includes conditions relating to this. Inaddition, University academic staff are requiredto make regular checks on the continuingadequacy and appropriateness of the resourcesas part of the annual monitoring process.

100 Library staff are members of the SQABs,Learning Enhancement Boards and SCPGswithin the schools. They are also members ofthe SCPGs. This multiplicity of links providesthe opportunity for learning resource issues tobe identified and acted upon. However, thelibrary staff are not required to formally auditservices within the partners, although they maybe called upon to provide specialist advice ifneeded. There has been a movement recentlyfor library staff to be more involved in theapproval and review process which recognisesthe valuable role that expert support staff canprovide. However, the application of this needsto be more strategically driven and the auditteam therefore advises that the Universityshould seek to secure a more active role of staffin learning and student support in the approvalmonitoring and review process.

101 Library staff are active in visiting partnersin the regional network. The audit team wasprovided with examples where such activitieshad taken place. These visits include work withboth partner staff and students and ofteninclude a library induction programme.However, the extent to which such visits can be extended across the partnership network is inevitably limited by geographicalconsiderations. The audit team was not awareof any visits by library staff to overseas partnersto provide a similar support role.

102 All students in collaborative partners haveaccess to the University's library. In practice, for all students except those living locally, this is normally limited to the use of the electronicresources where this is appropriate for the typeof model in operation. In addition students alsohave access to the virtual learning environment(VLE) of the University. The SPSG has recentlyestablished a subgroup specifically responsible

for improving communication betweenstrategic partners regarding access to libraryresources. The University also provides access to other libraries in the region for students inthe strategic partners through a variety ofcollaborative library schemes which benefitstudents who are not based in Sunderland.

103 The views of students met by the auditteam of the usefulness of the resources availablefrom the University varied. The students of onecollege within the strategic partnership visited by the team commented that the library was the key link with the University and providedeverything they needed. On the other handstudents at another UK partner collegesuggested that the VLE was of very limited use to them.

104 There are occasionally problems withelectronic access for students in countrieswhere the telecommunication systems are not very advanced. This can lead to a lack of comparability of student experience andfacilities across the network. The audit teamalso identified several examples where theregistration process was variable in itseffectiveness. Some students reported that ithad taken several months for them to obtainaccess to the University's resources while someof their colleagues were able to gain accessmuch more quickly.

105 The library offers information skills supportto all students through the VLE andsupplements this by visits to some partnerswhere this is feasible. It also provides an emailenquiry system which is particularly helpful tostudents who are at some distance from theUniversity. Overall the team formed the viewthat the commitment of the learning supportstaff and the initiatives that have beenundertaken were worthy of note. The teamrecognised that learning support is beginningto have more involvement in collaborativeprovision arrangements and would support thecontinued development of this aspect of theUniversity's work.


page 27

Academic guidance and personalsupport for students in collaborativeprovision

106 The University expects all students to havea personal tutor. In collaborative provision thetutor is a member of the partner college staff.Academic guidance is provided by eitherUniversity staff or partner staff depending on the model in operation. In practice,collaborative students tended to feel a muchcloser relationship with their college rather thanthe University and most issues relating toguidance were dealt with by local staff. Studentsmet by the audit team confirmed that they knewwhere to find advice if they needed it. The teamcame across several instances where the partnercollege had taken the initiative to informstudents about progression possibilities whichstudents had often not been aware of when they embarked on their initial course.

107 One overseas partner had taken theinitiative to send a member of its own supportstaff to Sunderland for a secondment ofapproximately six months to facilitate studentswho progressed from the partner to theUniversity. This appeared to work very well andwas considered by staff and students to be apositive development.

108 The CPSED indicated that all studentsreceive an induction which, although variablein detail across the provision depending on themodel and the location, included studentservices, library services, students' union andprogramme specific elements. Although nearlyall students who met the team confirmed thatthey received information at the start of theircourse, there appeared to be some variability inrelation to its appropriateness. In particular,although some handbooks were specific to thecollege and programme, and hence wereregarded as useful and relevant to students,others were more generic in nature and wereregarded as less useful. The University mightwish to consider ways in which all handbookscould be more specific to the location andprogramme. Overall however, the PartnerSurvey undertaken by the University for 2005rated induction at 98 per cent and 91 per cent,

for satisfactory or above, for overseas and UKpartners respectively.

109 The University provides access to specialistservices such as financial guidance, counselling,disability support and careers guidance todistance learning students and this hasencouraged the development of web-basedmaterial. Other students are expected to obtainsupport directly from their college but they dohave access to the generic web material. TheUniversity is aware of the cultural and practicalissues relating to overseas students and theiruse of the generic materials. The CareersService works closely with the EPO in relation tostrategic partners and although it deals directlywith other local partners, it calls upon the EPOfor administrative support.

110 The audit team also noted, as a positivefeature, that the University is hosting aconference for all collaborative partnersspecifically on support for students in FE later inthe year. The team considered that this was areflection of the positive response of theUniversity to providing support for studentsacross the range of its provision.

Section 3: The collaborativeprovision audit investigations:published information

Comments on the experience ofstudents in collaborative provision ofthe published information availableto them

111 The University identifies a variety of waysin which it provides published sources ofinformation to students. These includeUniversity and partner college websites,prospectuses, programme handbooks andmodule guides. In relation to on-campusprovision, the QAA institutional audit of theUniversity in 2004 found evidence that theinformation provided to students, both prior to joining the University and subsequently, wasaccurate, reliable and consistent. The Universityreviews its own promotional literature on athree-year cycle and, as part of this process,


page 28

includes consultation through focus groups andwith students and employers.

112 In relation to its collaborative provision,the CPSED indicated a number of meanswhereby the University seeks to ensurepublished sources of information for studentscontain accurate and reliable information. TheMemoranda of Agreement between theUniversity and its partner colleges contain arequirement that the latter's publicity materialmust be approved by the University before it isused. The Operations Manual, where one existsfor the collaborative provision, reiterates thisrequirement. The University lists over 80partners in its Register of Collaborative Partners,so that maintaining oversight of publicitymaterial, and in particular partner websites, is asignificant challenge. First-line responsibility forthis lies with University Programme Leaders,since they have the academic expertise requiredto evaluate promotional material content. Inorder to remind partners of the need to seekapproval, a section in the annual monitoringreport now requires programme leaders toconfirm publicity materials have been checked.Centre Leader visits to overseas and some UKpartners provide another opportunity to checkpublicity materials. In the case of publicitymaterials for collaborative partners of theBusiness School, overseen by the managingagent, the agent ensures that publicity materialis in the format which the University willapprove. However, the University still hasformally to give its approval.

113 The CPSED indicated that, in relation toweb-based publicity, responsibility for checkingthe accuracy of material produced by partnersresided in various parts of the Universityincluding Schools, the EPO and theInternational Office. Such web-based publicitymaterial has the potential for regular change,and the University has recognised the need tokeep partner websites under scrutiny. TheCPSED stated that the University had recentlyundertaken a comprehensive search of partnersites to check information was accurate and torequire action where it was not. The audit teamsought clarification of University policy and the

locus of responsibility for checking partner websites. It remains the case that ProgrammeLeaders are required to check web-basedmaterial alongside their responsibility forchecking the accuracy of other forms ofpromotional material. The EPO had undertakenthe 'comprehensive search of partner sites'mentioned in the CPSED, and this had coveredall UK HEFCE-funded partners and someinternational partners. The audit team was toldthat the University's International Office was inthe process of introducing a new policy forchecking partner websites at initial approvaland then periodically. Ultimate responsibility foroversight of partner websites was claimed bythe University's Corporate and RecruitmentServices. It had been agreed that protocols forpartners would be included as part of anongoing branding-guidelines project to beavailable to a wide range of off-campuspartners by September 2006. The audit teamwas satisfied that the University recognised theimportance of securing adequate oversight ofpartner web-based promotional material inorder to ensure its accuracy and reliability forpotential students. While acknowledging theconsiderable activity which the University hadundertaken in order to secure this objective, theaudit team considered that there would bemerit in the provision of a clearer definition ofresponsibility and communication of this torelevant parties.

114 Students whom the audit team metgenerally said they would regard themselves asstudents of their college, but they were awarefrom the outset that their course led to aUniversity of Sunderland award. This was thesame for both students in Strategic PartnerColleges and in other providers. Overall,students confirmed that the information theyhad received had been an accuraterepresentation of their course as they hadexperienced it. A minority of students indicatedthat, to some extent, this was not the case,citing such examples as a shortening in themaximum duration of their programme ofstudy, uncertainties about the progression froma Foundation Degree to an undergraduate


page 29

programme, and some performance-basedFoundation Degrees being less practical thanstudents had been led to believe. Informationabout where to study for many students wasnot particularly relevant, since they hadpreviously studied in the same college on lowerlevel programmes and the University ofSunderland programme was a naturalprogression.

115 Subsequent to recruitment, studentsreceive a variety of handbooks which containinformation about the University, the partnercollege, their programme of study and themodules which it comprises. In Model Acollaborative provision, the partner college isresponsible for producing programmehandbooks in accordance with Universityrequirements. In Models B, C and Dprogramme handbooks are normally producedby the relevant programme team at theUniversity, but partner colleges have the facilityto incorporate additional information. Similarly,module handbooks are all prepared by theUniversity except for Model A programmes.However, for Business programmes, themanaging agent produces the module guides,although the University quality assures them.

116 The University provides guidelines and hastemplates for the production of studenthandbooks. The audit team saw a number ofexamples of such handbooks. Some variabilityof content was noted, and also variation innomenclature. For example, CAT has a School-level Student Handbook and individualProgramme Handbooks, whereas the BusinessSchool provides guidance on programmesthrough Student Handbooks. However,meetings with students confirmed that they allhad University handbooks (with the exceptionof students from one college) and typicallythese were supplemented by a collegehandbook which provided information specificto the college and its resources. Studentsindicated that these handbooks were helpful.However, when it came to issues such asappeals, complaints and extenuatingcircumstances, while many students were awarethat the procedures were laid out in their

handbook, they would be more likely to seekadvice from their college tutor. The audit teamconsidered that students generally had accurateand useful information available to them. In asmall number of cases some of the informationcould be improved and the University will wishto monitor the documents to ensure that thecurrency of the information is maintained.

Reliability, accuracy and completenessof published information oncollaborative provision leading to theawarding institution's awards

117 The institutional audit of the University in2004 found that it had in place mechanisms toensure externally published information wasassured for accuracy through appropriate seniormanagers.

118 Information relating to the University onthe TQI site, including its collaborative provision,is maintained by the University's QAE. Theapproach which the University has taken inrespect of its collaborative provision is that it willonly include information relating to students oncollaborative provision in the UK and only wherethe provision involves the University itselfreceiving HEFCE funding. The University includessummaries of external examiner reports andconclusions of review events on the TQI site. Inpractice, the audit team found that specificreferences to collaborative provision were verylimited. The University indicated that it wascontinuing to seek clarification of whatinformation it should include on the TQI site inrelation to its collaborative provision. The auditteam was satisfied that, although limitedprogress had been made to date, the Universitywas aware of the need to meet the requirementsof TQI as it relates to its collaborative provisionand that it would do so when the requirementshave been clarified.


page 30

Findings

Findings119 An audit of the collaborative provision(CP) offered by the University was undertakenduring the period 3 to 7 April 2006. Thepurpose of the audit was to provide publicinformation on the quality of the programmesof study offered by the University througharrangements with collaborative partners, andon the discharge of the University'sresponsibility as an awarding body in assuringthe academic standard of its awards madethrough collaborative arrangements. As part ofthe collaborative audit process, the team visitedfour of the University's collaborative partners,and conducted meetings with an overseaspartner by video-conference. This section of thereport summarises the findings of the audit. Itconcludes by identifying features of goodpractice that emerged during the audit, andmaking recommendations to the University foraction to enhance current practice in itscollaborative arrangements.

The effectiveness of theimplementation of the awardinginstitution's approach to managingits collaborative provision

120 The University has a wide range ofcollaborative provision involving both UK andoverseas partners totalling some 2,200 full-timeand 2,100 part-time off-campus students and operating across all five schools of theUniversity. Historically, development ofcollaborative programmes arose in response to market need or through individual staffcontacts at programme level. More recently theUniversity has developed a strategic relationshipwith local partner colleges in order to serve itsstrategic aim of widening participation,particularly in an area of the country wherethere has traditionally been a significant underrepresentation in higher education. Overseascollaborations have developed as a result of theUniversity's strategic target to increaseinternational student numbers.

121 The University defines and operates fivemodels of collaborative partnership ranging

from complete devolution to the partner, withthe partner having responsibility forprogramme design and delivery, through toindependent study using University developedlearning and assessment materials. Othermodels involve combinations of delivery bypartner and University staff using eitherUniversity designed programmes orprogrammes developed jointly by Universityand partner staff.

122 The audit team saw evidence that thestrategies were achieving their aims in allcategories of provision, and that guidance andsupport was provided to students and partnersto encourage them into higher education.

123 Academic standards of awards and qualityof provision in CP are managed within what theaudit team found to be a complex frameworkof committees comprising subcommittees ofthe Academic Board and school basedcommittees including School CollaborativeProvision Groups (SCPGs) specifically concernedwith the quality and standards of collaborativeprovision. In addition there are a number ofUniversity-wide committees associated with the management of relationships with partnercolleges, and the approval of proposals for newpartners or new programmes. An EducationalPartnerships Office (EPO) manages andcoordinates the relationships with strategicpartner colleges. Advice and support beingprovided to all partnership arrangements by the University's Quality Assurance andEnhancement Unit. Standing alongside thesecommittees and groups within the University'sdeliberative structure, there is a StrategicPartnership Steering Group (SPSG) with its ownsubgroups which are ultimately accountable tothe University's Executive Board. Liaison andcommunication between these various groupsand committees is achieved through theinvolvement of key individuals and by theAcademic Programmes Committee (APC) whichperforms a pivotal role in coordinating the workof the deliberative and executive structures.

124 While the audit team found thearrangements for the monitoring of academicstandards of awards and quality of provision to


page 32

be effective they had some difficulty inidentifying the location of responsibilities for the management and development ofcollaborative provision. This was a view formedlargely because of the complex committeestructure but also because of a lack of clarity in the documentation describing the overallprocedures for collaborative activity.

The effectiveness of the awardinginstitution's procedures for assuringthe quality of educational provisionin its collaborative provision

125 The University's procedures for assuringthe quality of individual collaborativeprogrammes vary according to the five types of partnership defined by the University andthere are distinct arrangements for its strategicpartnerships, for other HEFCE-funded provisionand for private sector and overseas partners.

126 Procedures for the approval of partnersand the periodic review of collaborativeprovision were being further developed at thetime of the audit. The arrangements for annualmonitoring and programme approval were fullyestablished, and there is appropriate provisionfor external participation, including theinvolvement of professional bodies, in theapproval of new collaborative programmes. The approval of the staff employed by partnerorganisations is undertaken by schools.Teaching is observed and various forms of staffdevelopment are provided during the periodicvisits of University staff to partner organisations.Although staff development is largely centre or programme based, staff in partnerorganisations are invited to attend theUniversity's annual Academic and Collaborativeconferences. A significant component of theUniversity's portfolio of collaborative provision is delivered by distance learning methods, andguidance and training is offered on the use oflearning materials. These materials are alsoapproved through procedures that aredesigned to ensure their quality and currency.The examples of good practice identified by the team included the efforts that are made to provide development and training

opportunities for staff in partner organisationsand, in particular, those employed by itsstrategic partners.

127 There is no University-wide policy on thefrequency of visits by staff to partnerorganisations and the nature of these visits andsubsequent reporting requirements aredetermined by individual schools. Althoughstudents are invited to attend programme andmodule boards held at the University, the teamfound that participation was only apparent inthe case of students enrolled on theprogrammes offered by the University'sstrategic partners. For the remainder of theUniversity's partnerships, there is a reliance oninformal communications with students and on the feedback provided by means of thequestionnaires that have been developed bythe University and administered by partnerorganisations. At the time of the audit, aframework for student feedback was beingimplemented and this will not be applied to the University's collaborative provision until its effectiveness has been evaluated.

128 The 2004 institutional audit noted that a lack of readily accessible and useable datamade it difficult to tackle retention issues atlocal and institutional levels. The Universityindicated that from 2006-07 it intended toproduce centrally, using data in the StudentInformation Tracking System (SITS),management information on all programmesincluding those run in collaboration. The auditteam concluded that a particular priority for theUniversity should be the production of studentprogression, retention and completion data at both module/programme and site specificlevels to enable it to monitor the relativeperformances of students across collaborativeand on-campus sites. While admissions arehandled effectively by partners, the team feltthat the university should apply the samedegree of urgency in capturing the registrationdata of off-campus students to that applied tostudents studying in the University, to ensure all elements of the enrolment programme,including access to the university library, arecompleted in a timely manner.

Collaborative provision audit: findings

page 33

129 The University expressed the view that its differentiated arrangements for the qualityassurance of its various modes of collaborativeprovision have been effective. In particular, its arrangements for annual monitoring weredescribed as robust, producing a steadyimprovement in the reporting of collaborativeprovision at University level. The Universityacknowledged that several of its procedureswere being developed at the time of the audit,and it recognised that it had a continuingproblem in securing annual monitoring reportsthat were sufficiently evaluative. In addition, in its response to the recommendations ofprevious audit exercises, the Universitymaintained that the oversight of reports ofexternal agencies is more appropriately andeffectively carried out at school level. The auditteam concluded, however, that the Universityshould ensure that reports of external agenciesare consistently considered at senior levelwithin the committee structure to enable it toidentify recurring themes, good practice forsharing more widely, and to know thatrecommendations or conditions are respondedto at the appropriate level.

130 Several of the University's procedures werein the process of being developed at the timeof the audit, and the audit team found thatthere was scope for further development,particularly with respect to the assurance ofarticulation arrangements. The University hasgained valuable experience in the context of itsstrategic partnerships and this could be usefullyapplied to its other partnerships. In general, thecurrent framework is complex and entails asubstantial delegation to schools and toprogramme leaders. This has led to significantvariation in the manner and rigour with whichschools and programme teams discharge theirresponsibilities. The team also found that theminutes of school and University committeesdid not provide a consistently full, timely andreliable record of matters that had been raisedby partners or at programme level. The findingsof the current audit include recommendationsthat the University should set out its minimumrequirements by developing a range ofinstitution-wide policies. It is also

recommended that the University secures themore active involvement of staff in learning andstudent support services, thereby reducing itsreliance on communication betweenprogramme teams, and that it brings togetherits existing procedures into a single, user-friendly and accessible resource for use by itsown staff and by those in its partnerorganisations.

The effectiveness of the awardinginstitution's procedures forsafeguarding the standards of itsawards gained through collaborativeprovision

131 The 2004 institutional audit noted that the University made effective use of externalexaminers' reports and used them inprogramme monitoring. The Universityreported that, for collaborative provision, all external examiners are appointed by theUniversity, and the same external examiners are normally appointed across all the partnersinvolved in a particular programme. The teamconfirmed these arrangements were in placeand agreed that the external examiner reportsrelating to collaborative provision are subject to the same consideration and actionarrangements as those relating to on-campusprovision. The team learned, however, that thereports rarely make reference to individual sitesand are usually generic covering all aspects of a programme. In noting the University'sconsideration of this matter over a lengthyperiod, the team recommends that theUniversity's proposal to request examiners to refer to specific site issues in their reportsshould be introduced as a matter of urgency.

132 The team learned that some externalexaminers undertook visits to collaborative sitesduring the second year of appointment, and atthree yearly intervals thereafter. Some of thoseexternal examiners that visited sites preparedreports, which the team considered to behelpful and comprehensive, for consideration at the programme board. In concluding thatpractices with regard to visits and consequent'additional' reports are not consistently adopted


page 34

across the university, the team suggests that theUniversity's monitoring of both standards andquality would be enhanced by University-widepolicies in this regard.

The awarding institution's use of theAcademic Infrastructure in thecontext of its collaborative provision

133 The 2004 institutional audit confirmedthat the University was making appropriate useof the Academic Infrastructure - the Code ofpractice for the assurance of quality andstandards in higher education (Code of practice),The framework for higher education qualificationsin England, Wales and Northern Ireland,benchmark statements and programmespecifications. The audit team confirmed thatthe University closely keptunder review,through both CPG and QAE, that section of the Code of practice relating to collaborativeprovision and flexible and distributed learning.The University's use of other elements of theAcademic Infrastructure are referenced atapproval, validation and review events with theassistance of external members of peer panels,and the team noted specific examples ofreference to the Foundation Degree benchmarkstatement during the approval processes ofjointly partner developed and deliveredFoundation Degrees. The team considered thatin order for the Academic Infrastructure to beunderstood by all those involved in thecollaborative arrangements, partner collegestaff would benefit from the inclusion of theAcademic Infrastructure as an element in thestaff development programme the University is developing for partnership staff.

The utility of the collaborativeprovision audit self-evaluationdocument as an illustration of theawarding institution's capacity toreflect upon its own strengths andlimitations in collaborative provision,and to act on these to enhancequality and safeguard academicstandards

134 The audit team found the CPSED to be

clear and adequately referenced to supportingdocumentation. It provided a critical evaluationof the development of collaborative provisionwithin the University and explained the evolutionof the current approach to the maintenance ofquality and standards associated with thedelivery of collaborative provision. During thecourse of the audit the team learned that theUniversity had prepared the CPSED in fullcollaboration with partner institutions, thestudent body and the University staff involved in delivering collaborative provision. Overall, theteam found the CPSED to be a fair illustration of the University's capacity to reflect on its ownstrengths and limitations in its approach tocollaborative provision. The team did, however,have some difficulty in understanding thecomplex arrangements for monitoring qualityand standards prior to a further explanation fromstaff during the audit visit.

Commentary on the institution'sintentions for the enhancement ofquality and standards

135 The University has introduced a substantialnumber of developments relating to itsmanagement of collaborative provision over thelast few years. These include the CollaborativeProvision Groups at both University and schoollevels, the Foundation Degrees Group, theInternational Office, and the EducationalPartnerships Office. It has also ensured thatthere is a channel of communication betweenthe school CPGs and the University CPGwhereby the chairs of the SCPG are membersof the CPG. However, at the partner level theteam noted that there appeared to bevariability in the level and content of contactbetween the schools and the partner. Particularattention is given to the local strategic partnerswho enjoy a closer relationship with theUniversity than other partners and where thenetwork is overseen by a Strategic PartnersSteering Group. The audit team noted that theUniversity was becoming more focussed onbusiness planning, but in practice it was onlyrecently starting to look at how this might assistin rationalising the provision.


page 35

136 Although the CPSED indicated that theCPG was working on developing qualityassurance processes and procedures, and wascarrying out an annual review of collaborativeactivity and the dissemination of good practice,the audit team found that there was variabilityin the detail available for collaborativemonitoring. For example, it was sometimesvery difficult to disaggregate the performanceof students at the different partners in theannual reporting process. The team recognisedthat the lack of an evaluative dimension wasacknowledged by the University in the CPSEDand encouraged the University to give theimprovement of this a high priority.

137 Arrangements for incorporating a riskapproach into the approval process are in placealthough these seemed to focus more onbusiness risk rather than academic risk. Theaudit team also considered that the Universitycould usefully involve expert staff from thelearning and student support services morefully in the approval of new collaborativepartners. The team also noted that OperationManuals for partners were now used across allschools and although there was some variabilityin their relevance to the particular partner, theteam identified this development as an exampleof good practice which it would encourage.

138 The overall view of the audit team was that,although many developments had taken place, itwas not wholly apparent that these were part ofa coordinated and proactive approach on thepart of the University to enhance its managementof collaborative provision.

Reliability of information provided bythe awarding institution on itscollaborative provision

139 In relation to information to potentialstudents for its collaborative provision, theaudit team saw evidence of robust mechanismsto ensure the accuracy and reliability ofinformation provided to students about theUniversity's programmes by partner institutions.All collaborative provision is supported by aMemorandum of Agreement between theUniversity and the partner institution, and thisrequires the partner to seek approval from the

University for all publicity material. Thisrequirement is reinforced in those instanceswhere there is also an operations manual.

140 The audit team sought to test theeffectiveness of the University's oversight ofpublicity material relating to its collaborativeprovision. It focused particularly on oversight ofwebsites, since the combination of a largenumber of both UK and overseas partners, andthe facility with which web-based material maybe subject to change makes this a particularlydifficult area to control. In discussion with staff atvarious levels, it was clear that the Universityrecognised the challenges inherent inmaintaining control over the accuracy andreliability of partner websites as they related toUniversity programmes. There was ampleevidence of recent and ongoing initiativesemanating from the EPO, the InternationalOffice and the University's Corporate andRecruitment Services. However, it was evidentthat, as with many other aspects of collaborativeprovision particularly outside the StrategicPartnership colleges, considerable reliance wasplaced on Programme and Centre Leaders toundertake periodic checks on partner publicitymaterials including websites. Also, whileacknowledging the considerable amount ofactivity within the University in connection withthe checking of partner websites, the audit teamwas of the view that this would benefit from theprovision of a clearer definition of responsibilityand communication of this to relevant parties.

141 In relation to the provision of informationto potential students through TQI publishedmaterial, the University had established a policytowards this but acknowledged limitedavailability of information to date, notably inrelation to external examiner reports andprogramme reviews. The audit team was of theview that the University was aware of itsobligations to meet the TQI requirements, thatit was genuinely seeking clarification of theexact nature of these requirements, and that itwould meet the requirements as they wereclarified. In its meetings with students oncollaborative programmes, the audit team wassatisfied that students had found theinformation provided about the University'scollaborative programmes was accurate and


page 36

reliable when compared to their actualexperience of studying on these programmes.

142 Once enrolled on collaborative programmes,students were provided with information throughinduction programmes and through studenthandbooks. The audit team saw evidence of adegree of variability in the content and usefulnessof such information between schools andbetween different models of collaborativeprovision. However, their meetings with studentsled them to conclude that students were generallyaware of University procedures and where theycould look for academic and pastoral support.

Features of good practice

143 Of the features of good practice noted inthe course of the collaborative provision auditthe team noted the following in particular:

i the arrangements established for thedevelopment and management of theStrategic Partnerships (paragraphs 29, 36,77 and 89)

ii the development and implementation ofoperations manuals for individualprogrammes and partners (paragraphs 32and 45)

iii the staff development opportunitiesoffered to staff at partner organisationsand the scope of the events organised byschools and centrally by the University(paragraphs 89, 90 and 91).

Recommendations for action

144 The audit team also recommends that theUniversity consider further action in a numberof areas to ensure that the academic quality ofprogrammes and the standards of awards itoffers through collaborative arrangements aremaintained.

Recommendations for action that is advisable:

i review the potential overreliance placed bythe University on schools and programmeboards both for day to day liaison, andgathering information for the approval ofcentres, and secures the more activeinvolvement of appropriate staff in learningand student support services in the approval,

monitoring and review of collaborativeprovision (paragraphs 29, 44, 96 and 100)

ii put in place appropriate procedures toensure full and timely consideration ofrelevant information, including externalreview reports, at Quality Assurance Boardand other appropriate senior committees(paragraphs 50 and 61)

iii review arrangements for the approval,monitoring and review of articulations toensure that the University can safeguardthe interests of students following suchprogrammes (paragraph 55)

iv at the earliest opportunity introduce therevised external examiner report templaterequiring examiners to distinguishbetween all the sites offering aprogramme (paragraphs 59 and 97)

v as a matter of priority enhance the StudentInformation Tracking System to ensure that,at a site specific level, there is provision ofdata on student progression, retention andcompletion for both modules andprogrammes (paragraphs 83 and 97).

Recommendations for action that is desirable:

vi use its planned review of committees andgroups as an opportunity to reassess thelocation of responsibilities for themanagement and development ofcollaborative provision (paragraph 27)

vii develop a single, user-friendly andaccessible resource that brings togetherexisting procedures for collaborativeactivity to be used by staff in theUniversity and partners, to provide for ashared and clear understanding of therequirements and challenges ofcollaborative provision (paragraph 32)

viii develop a University-wide policy regardingits minimum requirements relating to thefrequency of visits by external examinersand University staff to partners and thereporting of those visits (paragraphs 62and 97)

ix build on its experience of reviewingstrategic partners to give carefulconsideration to the means by which theUniversity can periodically review all itspartners (paragraph 52).

page 37



page 38

Appendix

The University of Sunderland's response to the collaborative provision audit report

The University is pleased to acknowledge the professional and constructive way in which the QAA panel undertook the collaborative provision audit and the full understanding obtained of the University's complex and varied range of collaborative provision and the associated qualityassurance processes. It has broadened the University's perspective on a number of matters it wasalready addressing and raised one or two additional points.

The University was particularly pleased to note the commendations from the auditors. The strategicpartnerships were established only recently and considerable effort has been made by the Universityand its partners to manage this arrangement effectively. Operation manuals are being usedincreasingly across the provision and proving a useful tool in the management of foundationdegrees, in particular. These manuals have been used for all overseas collaborations for some yearsand have proved their worth. The University has put considerable effort into the staff developmentopportunities available to partner staff in recent years, which is appreciated by partners and, theUniversity is pleased to see, was recognised by the auditors.

The University had already taken steps at the time of the audit to involve library staff more actively in the quality assurance of collaborative provision. This will be developed further and its effectiveness monitored. The revised template for external examiners' reports has now beenintroduced. The quality of the data available on student progression, retention and completion isimproving each year. Particular attention is being paid to the information available to teams for themonitoring of collaborative programmes. The review of Academic Board Committees has now beencompleted, subject to finalising the constitution of some committees. The Collaborative ProvisionGroup maintains a central position in this structure and will report to the two main committees of the Board as appropriate (one overseeing standards and one overseeing enhancement). TheUniversity will ensure that the new structure enables the issues raised in the collaborative audit to be addressed effectively.

The University has now agreed a process for review of all its partners except for its most recentpartnership with a managing agent. The details of the processes for the review of this latter type of arrangement are currently under consideration and Collaborative Provision Group will agree theprocess for this before the end of 2006. It will also be revisiting the arrangements for approval,monitoring and review of articulation agreements. The University has agreed changes to themonitoring process allowing programme teams to produce shorter monitoring reports in someyears. It is hoped that this will shorten the time taken by Schools to conduct the monitoring of their provision each year. However, collaborative programmes will continue to produce a detailedmonitoring report every year. It is also proposed that all annual reports from partners areconsidered by the School Collaborative Provision Groups as soon as the reports come into theSchool, to facilitate early identification and resolution of issues.

RG

268 08/06

University of Sunderland April 2006 - Archive · University of Sunderland APRIL 2006. Preface The...

Documents

Transcript of University of Sunderland April 2006 - Archive · University of Sunderland APRIL 2006. Preface The...