Glasgow Caledonian University and Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman

May 2005

This report considers the collaborative arrangement between Glasgow Caledonian University (the University) and Caledonian College of Engineering in Oman. The most recent quality audit report on the University was published by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in March 2001.

Introduction

1 QAA is a UK organisation that seeks to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and the funders of higher education. One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2005, QAA audited selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in the southern Gulf States. The purpose of the audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and the quality of education in their partnerships.

The process of audit for the overseas partnership links

2 In July 2004, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in a range of overseas countries. On the basis of the information returned on the nature and scale of the links, QAA selected for audit five UK institutions with links in either the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain) or the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). Each of the selected institutions produced a commentary describing the way in which the link operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity.

3 Institutions were also invited in their commentaries to make reference to the ways in which their arrangements met the expectations of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), in particular, Section 2: Collaborative provision. Published by QAA in 1999, this section took effect in August 2000, with subsequent revisions (including the incorporation of a revision to the Guidelines on the quality assurance of distance learning) being made in 2004, to take effect in September 2005. In the context of these audits there was no expectation that institutions would necessarily be able to demonstrate that they met the expectations of the Code of practice where these had been recently revised, although several institutions indicated that they were using the new combined Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), having already reviewed their procedures for alignment with its precepts.

4 In spring 2005, audit visits were made to each UK institution to discuss its arrangements in the light of its commentary. In May 2005, an audit team visited the partner institutions in the Gulf to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institutions' commentaries and from the UK visits. During the visits to institutions in the Gulf, discussions were conducted with key members of staff and with students. The full audit team comprised Dr P Easy, Dr D Furneaux, Professor A Gale, Professor D Meehan, Dr P Noyes (auditors) and Ms H Douglas (audit secretary), although Mrs S Patterson acted as audit secretary for the visit to the University. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Ms J Holt, Assistant Director, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in the Gulf States for the willing cooperation they provided to the team.

The context of collaborative provision with partners in Oman

5 Higher education institutions in Oman, whether state or privately owned, must conform to the Requirements of Oman's System of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ROSQA), and be accredited by the Accreditation Board of the Council for Higher Education. The Ministry of Higher Education oversees and manages this process. Revised guidelines for the designation of institutional title (university, university college or college of higher education) are being developed and it is intended that institutions should reapply for accreditation under the new criteria. For colleges these include affiliation to a university, either in Oman or overseas. In addition, all higher education programmes must be accredited and fully recognised under the National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education in Oman, which has recently been approved by the Council for Higher Education for adoption by the Accreditation Board. Under this framework the UK honours degree is regarded as equivalent to the bachelors degree in Oman.

The background to the collaborative link

General background

6 The collaborative arrangement between Glasgow Caledonian University (the University) and the Caledonian College of Engineering in Oman (the College) was established in 1996. The initial programmes were at diploma level and were intended to act as articulation routes to degrees in engineering at the University. The nature of the partnership, and the range of programmes involved, have since developed and expanded. Currently, there is a BSc (Hons) Engineering with routes in Computer Aided Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Power Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Mechatronics, Process Operations and Maintenance Engineering, and Telecommunications Engineering. A BSc (Hons) in Built Environment is offered with routes in Building Surveying, Civil Engineering, Construction Engineering, Quantity Surveying, and Environmental Civil Engineering. The first two levels of the University's BEng degree are also offered with the possibility of a transfer to the University or the exit award of a University diploma. The language of delivery and assessment is English in all cases.

7 The College is a privately owned institution established in 1996 to meet a need for engineering education in Oman. The University was approached to provide a significant contribution to the creation of the College, in addition to the provision of academic programmes. This included recruitment of the Principal and making a recommendation for appointment to the owners of the College as well as giving general advice on resources and structures. The College thus has longstanding and significant links with the University, although it is clearly independent, with the University having no shareholder interest and the owners of the College making the final decision on appointment of the Principal (now the Principal and Dean). Currently, there are approximately 1,200 students at the College of whom about 700 are registered for the awards of the University; some 300 are enrolled on the College's Foundation programme which provides the major admissions route to the degree courses. The institution was granted University College status by the Omani authorities in April 2002.

8 The University has a range of overseas collaborative activities, including franchise arrangements with partners in Hong Kong, Singapore and Athens, and articulation agreements with a number of institutions in China. The majority of these links will not become active until September 2005. In its Commentary, the University described the partnership as 'the most well developed collaboration in terms of size and scope' in which it was currently involved, and indicated that it had adopted the main principles of the arrangement as a model for its other emerging overseas collaborations.

The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision

9 The University's Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook (QAEH) states that, in respect of academic quality and standards, the policies and procedures of the Senate of the University apply to all collaborative provision. In the specific case of the link with the College, the main text of the Academic Affiliation Agreement (AAA) places responsibility on the University to 'ensure the maintenance and enhancement of the academic standards of Caledonian College of Engineering to the same standards as those at Glasgow Caledonian University' and to 'ensure the comparability of standards...by oversight of the quality assurance [process] in accordance with the procedures and policies in force at the University'. From these statements, it appeared to the audit team that the University considered itself solely responsible for academic standards, and jointly responsible for quality assurance through oversight of the activities of the College in this context.

10 However, this position is rendered slightly less clear by an annex to the AAA dealing with quality assurance arrangements which states that, following approval, the 'Senate of Glasgow Caledonian University and Caledonian College of Engineering will be responsible for the maintenance and oversight of the academic standards of the programmes'. This apparent anomaly was identified in the internal quality audit (IQA) of the collaborative link in March 2000 (see paragraph 34). The report recommended that 'reference to the shared responsibility of [the University] and [the College] in respect of the academic standards of the awards...should be removed and it should be clarified that [the University] retains the ultimate responsibility for academic standards of these awards'. In its response to the report in October 2001, the University stated that the AAA would be 'modified to incorporate the...clarification of responsibilities' and that the revised AAA, due in 2003, would 'fully incorporate the changes'. Since the AAA of 2003, which is that currently in force, did not subsequently incorporate such changes, the audit team was unsure whether this indicated an administrative oversight or a change of intention by the University. In either case, there is an inconsistency with the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision and the University may wish to consider the adequacy of the AAA in stating its responsibility for academic standards.

11 The same IQA report noted an 'element of confusion regarding the meaning of accreditation and franchise as used variously to describe the relationship at the outset'. The audit team also perceived a lack of clarity in the way the University expresses its understanding of the nature of the partnership with the College. In its Commentary, the University described the awards offered by the College as franchised programmes and, in meetings with the team, senior staff of the University confirmed that the partnership was on a franchise basis. However, the team noted that Annex 3 of the current AAA refers to the 'Accreditation of Caledonian College of Engineering' and to the initial approval exercise conducted in 1997 as an 'accreditation visit'.

12 The audit team considered that some aspects of the partnership did not fit easily with the definition of 'programme franchising' contained in the QAEH as a 'process by which an awarding institution agrees to authorise the provision of the whole or part of one or more of its own approved programmes by a partner organisation'. As examples, one of the routes offered at the College is not provided at the University and there are also modules which have been amended (albeit to enable them to represent more accurately the local context in Oman). The QAEH also defines 'accreditation' as a process by which 'an institution...is given wide authority by a university...to exercise powers and responsibility for academic provision'. Given the role undertaken by the College, for example, in respect of admissions and assessment (see paragraphs 35-36 and 39-40), it appeared to the team that 'accreditation' would more accurately describe the partnership.

13 In its Commentary, the University did not include any discussion of its general approach to collaborative provision, or the policies and strategies which might inform its activities in this area. The audit team noted that, at the time of the QAA quality audit in late 2000, the University was reported as having withdrawn, or being in the process of withdrawing, from all overseas links other than with the College because it had encountered difficulties with partners adhering to its quality assurance procedures. In meetings with staff of the University, the team heard that these difficulties had caused the institution to draw back from overseas activities, but that it was now keen to engage again, having learned from its previous experiences.

14 In seeking evidence of an institutional approach to overseas collaboration, the audit team considered the brief International and Overseas Policy (July 2003), the more recent Collaboration Policy (March 2005) and a short International Strategy document (April 2005). The International and Overseas Policy does not specifically deal with overseas collaboration as expressed through the delivery of academic programmes, perhaps because it was framed at a time when the University was withdrawing from such arrangements. The more recent Collaboration Policy is a short and broad consideration of the risks associated with collaborative work, although there is no particular discussion of overseas collaborative links or of the potential additional risk associated with them. The appended International Strategy reinforces some of the intentions of the earlier International Policy but is clearer on the University's wish, under its adopted 'strap-line' of 'Bringing the world to the campus/Bringing the campus to the world', to 'offer to students elsewhere the Caledonian experience and the opportunity to gain a Caledonian award'. In the view of the audit team, it would be difficult to arrive at any clear picture regarding the University's policy and strategy on overseas collaborative provision from these documents.

15 The University does not maintain any separate committees with a special brief for collaborative activities but subsumes responsibilities in this area into its general deliberative structures. Hence, the Academic Policy and Planning Committee (APPC) has a remit to 'to maintain an overview of University policy and procedures with respect to overseas collaborative programmes', and the Academic Practice Committee (APC) is responsible for the initial approval of overseas collaborations and, through the receipt of reports from schools, for ensuring that such links are appropriately monitored. From the evidence of the minutes of APPC, the Committee's engagement with overseas academic collaborations has been limited other than the consideration of developments in China. APC is a forum for more frequent discussion but, given its other extensive responsibilities, it could not be seen as representing a clear focus for the strategic management of overseas collaborations. In respect of executive responsibilities, the Executive Director of Strategy, Quality and International has a responsibility at institutional level for all international activities and is a member of both APPC and APC.

16 A significant amount of responsibility for the management of a collaborative link is vested in the relevant programme board at the University. The QAEH also describes the process by which a partner institution must establish a 'mirror' programme board for the franchised award. This acts in essence as a sub-board of the host board at the University (see paragraph 29) and reports to it on a regular basis. The Franchised Programme Liaison Handbook (FPLH) emphasises the importance of the links between the programme boards at both institutions, indicating a requirement for 'high levels of mutual understanding and a firm commitment to act co-operatively'.

17 In its Commentary the University also referred to a small informal group, the Oman Group, which meets at least once in each semester to discuss operational issues. The audit team was provided with the notes of this Group. In addition to operational issues, the team noted that the Group had also considered a number of academic matters, including proposed grading structures and the moderation of examination papers, and had also received the report of one of the chief external assessors (see paragraph 45). The relationship of the work of the Group to the responsibilities of other University bodies, in particular programme boards, was not clear to the team, but in discussion with staff of the University, it heard that the Group might in future be integrated into the formal committee structure. Given the usefulness of the work that the Group undertakes, the team would endorse this intention, although the University will need, at the point of integration, to ensure that terms of reference for the Group do not overlap with those of established committees such as programme or school boards.

18 It appeared to the audit team that the lack of a clear focus for overseas collaborative activities in the University's structures might well have contributed to some of the difficulties in operations and communications which are discussed in the Commentary. An apposite example is the delay encountered in the provision of some electronic learning resources and opportunities to students at the College. The Commentary noted that the University's wish, stated in the AAA, that students at the College are provided with a similar learning environment to those studying in Glasgow, had proved problematic, especially in the delivery of electronic access to its virtual learning environment (VLE), its library, and My Caledonian (the virtual interface with students at the University). These issues are relatively longstanding and have been the subject of continued debate at the Oman Group. Some of the problems which have been encountered are related, according to the University, to data protection or other legal issues, although cost implications were also a factor. However, in more general terms, it appeared to the team that such issues - which are institutional in nature and not therefore the province of school or programme boards - were not being resolved as promptly as might be desirable. As an informal group, the Oman Group, while able to discuss such matters, has no remit or authority to resolve them and appeared not to be able to refer in a routine manner issues to any other body in the University structure, being reliant instead on some of its members with university-wide responsibilities to promote individually its point of view.

19 In summary, the University may wish to consider the clearer articulation of general policy and strategy for overseas collaborative activities and the designation of a focus for such activities in its deliberative structure.

20 In respect of its approach to the Code of practice the QAEH states that the University will be guided by the revised Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) and, in meetings with staff, the audit team was told of the University's commitment to using this document in relation to its collaborative activities. While the Commentary itself did not offer any view on the University's consideration of the Code of practice, in the team's view the University's collaborative activities meet many of its precepts, although scope for further development exists in certain areas, as discussed elsewhere in this report.

Formal arrangements

21 The partnership is governed by the AAA between the University and the College, and the Commentary stated that the FPLH was also a key document in the definition of the partnership. In addition, the audit team consulted the section covering collaborative arrangements in the QAEH. The current version of the AAA was drawn up in 2003 and expires in 2013 with a midpoint review in 2008. As such, it predates the University's current practice, as stated in the QAEH, which requires a memorandum of agreement to be established for a collaborative partnership using one of a number of available templates. In the view of the audit team, the AAA responds appropriately to the expectations of the Code of practice, although the team did seek clarification of the arrangements for students in the case of a termination of the partnership. In the AAA, the sole option specified is a transfer to the University for completion, in which case the appropriate overseas tuition fee would apply. The team heard that, in practice, more flexible arrangements would probably be made and the University provided a recent example, in respect of a different link, where staff had travelled at the University's expense to provide appropriate local support. In the light of its proven practice, the University may wish to consider the possibility of building into the AAA more flexibility regarding its residual obligations to students in the case of termination of the partnership.

22 Both award certificates and transcripts are produced by the University using its standard arrangements which involve updating the student record database following each assessment board. The award certificate gives the place and location of study, although this is not repeated on the transcript other than for 'Oman' being used as an addendum to the degree title. The transcript also provides useful guidance on credit points and percentage grades.

23 The College is responsible, under the terms of the AAA, for the promotion of the programmes in Oman and must 'use all reasonable efforts' to do so in consultation with the University. However, joint prior agreement is required for the use of any promotional material which refers directly to the University or which incorporates its logo or coat of arms. The audit team was told that the parameters for publicity were established at the beginning of the partnership, but there was no formal process in place by which the University continued to monitor the materials published by the College. The team was able to consider a range of promotional material from the College. In general, it was accurate, well produced and made explicit on every occasion the College's affiliation to the University. However, in view of the expectations of the Code of practice, the University may wish to consider the introduction of a more systematic approach to monitoring publicity materials.

The establishment, management and quality assurance of the link

Approval processes

24 The Commentary stated that the company which established the College in 1996 approached the University, through its Principal at that time, to seek assistance in the creation of the institution. An agreement was reached by which the University supplied advice and expertise in both organisational and curriculum matters. The initial programmes to be offered were at diploma level with students then transferring to the University to complete their degree studies. The Commentary was commendably frank in describing the opening years of the partnership as 'difficult' with significant costs being incurred and a lack of enthusiasm for the initiative at some levels in the University, reinforced by the small numbers of students who eventually transferred.

25 The 2000 IQA was equally forthright, concluding that an insufficiently thorough approach had been taken to the initial arrangements for approving the partnership: a small 'project team' had undertaken the bulk of the work and not reported adequately through the University's academic governance structure, with the result that formal approval processes fell behind events already in train. The University has since adopted a standard process for the approval of new collaborative partnerships which is described in the QAEH. This involves informing the Executive Director of Strategy, Quality and International when a new proposal for collaboration emerges (although it is not clear if an approval from this senior member of staff is also required at this stage). The relevant school must then seek approval from both its school board and the appropriate programme board. After this stage, a draft memorandum of agreement is prepared, together with a financial annex (the latter having been approved by the Director of Finance). These two documents are presented to APC as the evidence base on which it decides whether the proposal should be recommended to Senate. Only after consent by Senate are the arrangements for an approval event made.

26 In considering the effectiveness of this process for selecting a partner organisation, the audit team noted that, apart from a general statement about following the appropriate section of the Code of practice, the published description in the QAEH did not include any specific guidance related to 'due diligence' or other legal and financial checks on a prospective partner. Advisory visits and the appointment of a University mentor to assist with the preparation of the proposal are covered in the QAEH, although the team assumed that these followed, rather than preceded, the initial selection of the partner. As an example of the practical application of the process, the team tracked the approval of a recent overseas partnership through institutional committee minutes. In this case, APC approved a franchise arrangement with the condition that 'the Memorandum of Agreement be submitted for approval by Chair's Action before the admission of students onto the programmes'. In the team's view, this casts some doubt on whether the memorandum could have served to provide an appropriate evidence base permitting APC to recommend the partnership to Senate prior to an approval event. (The team could not, in any case, trace an explicit reference in the minutes of Senate for the approval of the link.)

27 It appeared to the audit team that the University's current procedures for selecting a partner organisation, and the process by which a new link was then approved, were not entirely secure. There does not appear to be a structured involvement at the institutional level until relatively late in the process and, on the evidence seen by the team, the process itself is not always followed according to the University's own published requirements.

28 In respect of the approval of individual programmes, there has been a series of validation events in the history of the partnership from the initial approval of the original diploma programmes in 1997 to the validations in 2002, 2003 and 2004 which approved the current suite of degree routes. The audit team was able to consider a number of validation reports which indicated that such events were conducted according to the procedures set out in the QAEH and included appropriate external involvement. In addition, the team noted the generally high quality of the College's responses to these exercises. As an example, the College was required to furnish a report one year after the validation in 2003 which took the degree programmes to honours level. The report began with a useful overview from the Principal and Dean analysing student performance, the conduct of project work, and the integration of professional development planning (PDP) modules. This was followed by systematic and thorough responses from each relevant College department. In summary, the sound and thorough approval process at programme level is identified in the audit as a positive feature of this partnership.

Monitoring processes

29 The College is required by the University to submit an annual programme analysis (APA) for each programme. The APA is compiled against a template issued by the University and is considered by the host programme board. This process mirrors the procedure for all University programmes. The audit team was provided with a range of APAs produced by the College. These included admissions, progression and performance data; a review of the issues raised at programme board and student-staff consultative group (SSCG) meetings; a review of external assessor reports; comments on the implementation of the College's learning, teaching and assessment strategy; and sections covering research and staff development. A quality enhancement action plan was included together with an analysis of the plan from the previous APA. In the team's view, these reports were thorough and comprehensive, providing an excellent basis for the University to monitor the quality of the programmes under review.

30 In considering the minutes of the host programme boards, the audit team noted some variation in the ways in which the reports from the College were considered. In some areas, College matters were a standard agenda item and there was evidence of the discussion of a range of issues, including APAs and visit reports. Elsewhere, engagement with the College appeared minimal with a tendency for APAs to be accepted as a matter of report rather than being the subject of debate or more detailed discussion. The University itself has recently identified this as an issue: the IQA conducted in March 2005 (see paragraph 34) noted that 'timely feedback is required from the relevant Host School Board at [the University] following submission of the Annual Programme Analysis/Continuous Quality Improvement Plan from the [College's] Programme Board'. The University will no doubt wish to act on the advice of its internal audit and ensure that APAs are carefully considered by all programme boards.

31 The University also operates a system of biennial reports from schools to APC on the effectiveness of monitoring processes at school level. As an outcome of the reports submitted in April 2003, APC identified a need for an annual reporting mechanism for collaborative provision. The audit team noted the submission in October 2003 by the School of Engineering, Science and Design (ESD) of a report covering the link with the College for activities in 2001-02. A further report from ESD was submitted in April 2005, covering 2003-04, but the team could not trace a report to APC for the intervening academic year. In respect of the School of Built and Natural Environment (BNE), the only report made available to the team was submitted in December 2004, covering the academic year 2002-03. In the team's view, the concept of an annual report from the relevant schools to APC is sound since it enables the progress of this collaborative partnership to be monitored at University level. However, the somewhat sporadic nature of the submission of the reports tends to undermine the value of the process.

32 The AAA also specifies biannual visits by senior representatives of the University to ensure that all obligations under the agreement are being fully implemented. In discussion with staff, the audit team was told that this process had been subsumed into other types of staff visits, although at least one formal visit took place annually. The team noted that the frequency of visits to the College had increased since 2000 and concluded that the combination of validation events, staff visits and exchanges, and other interactions between the two partners provided a sufficient basis for monitoring the obligations under the AAA.

Review processes

33 The chief periodic review mechanism in the University is enhancement-led internal subject review (ELISR), which operates on a five-year cycle at the level of the school and includes consideration of collaborative provision. At the time of the audit, neither ESD nor BNE had been through ELISR, so it was not possible for the audit team to reach any conclusions on the effectiveness of the process when applied to the collaborative link with the College.

34 The University also has an IQA process which involves either a procedural audit of specific programmes or a thematic audit to consider issues across the University. The audit team was provided with two reports generated through this process, which related to the College, and reference is made to their detailed conclusions or recommendations elsewhere in the report. The 2000 IQA used a methodology which compared the link with the Code of practice. The team considered the resultant report to be extremely detailed and thorough, providing a good basis for the continuing development of the partnership. The 2005 IQA covered two selected degree programmes at the College and, given its recent completion, the team was only able to see an initial summary of the report. Although the team had reservations as to the University's ability to respond in a timely manner to some of the issues raised, on the evidence of these two reports, the constructive application of the IQA process to this partnership and the University's capacity to be open and self-critical in evaluating its role in the partnership are identified as positive features.

The assurance of the standards of awards

Admissions policies and their implementation

35 The AAA states that the College, acting under the auspices of the University, will be responsible for day-to-day administration, including the admission and registration of students. The FPLH confirms this arrangement, stating that admissions requirements and criteria for entry are determined by the University and set out in the relevant programme specifications. It goes on to note that 'the Host Programme Board will monitor the application of the requirements, through Annual Programme Analysis'.

36 The audit team was supplied with extensive documentation covering the admissions process at the College. The majority of students entering the University's award programmes are recruited initially to the College's Foundation programme. A substantial entry test is administered which includes competence in English, science and mathematics. The English component is benchmarked periodically against the requirements of the International English Language Testing System. There is also an interview with each candidate. In cases of credit obtained through the accreditation of prior learning (APL), decisions are taken by the College, although the team was told that, on occasion, difficult or unusual cases might be referred to the University. It is a feature of the College's practice that, even in the case of admissions with APL, all students are required to take the entry test. In the view of the team the College's arrangements for admissions were thorough and rigorous.

37 Despite the FPLH's requirement that admissions should be monitored through the APA, it appeared to the audit team that there was little, if any, input to this process from the University. Following the initial setting of criteria for admissions, the process has effectively been devolved completely to the College. While the APAs from the College provide useful statistical information on admissions, this in itself would not be sufficient for any qualitative form of monitoring to be undertaken. This position has not changed since the inception of the partnership and the team noted that the 2000 IQA had also expressed surprise 'that there was no periodic monitoring [of admissions] by [the University]'.

38 In the view of the audit team, the position adopted by the University in respect of the admission of students more closely resembles that applied to an accredited partner than a partnership characterised as a series of franchises. In practical terms, the College's conduct of admissions is such that the University may have full confidence in the process. However, in view of the University's own requirements, and the general expectations of the Code of practice in relation to recruitment and admissions in international contexts, the University may wish to consider its arrangements for qualitative (as distinct from quantitative) monitoring of admissions to the College.

Assessment of students

39 The FPLH states that, in general, assessment of the programmes delivered at the College follows standard University assessment regulations. It then sets out the particular role played by the College in assessment procedures. In respect of the setting of assessment, examination papers for levels 1 and 2 are prepared by the College but moderated by staff of the University and the external assessor. Papers for levels 3 and 4 are prepared directly by the University, although the audit team heard that College staff may contribute in cases where the curriculum of a module has been amended to fit the Omani context. The College is responsible for design of all coursework assignments, although those for level 4 are moderated by the appropriate module leader at the University. In the view of the audit team, the University was exercising appropriate control over the setting of assessment for the programmes at the College.

40 The marking of assessed work at all levels is undertaken by staff at the College; however, at level 3, a sample of work is moderated by University staff, but only for the purpose of giving developmental feedback to College staff. All work at level 4 is moderated fully by the University prior to the assessment board. Assessment boards are held at the College with final results for levels 1, 2, and 3 agreed at these boards sent to the University for information; results for level 4 are forwarded to the appropriate assessment board at the University for ratification. The Commentary stated that assessment boards at the College were held in 'exactly the same manner as Boards at [the University]'. The boards at the College are chaired by the Principal and Dean, and their core membership is the appropriate College heads of department. They are also attended by the relevant chief external assessor (see paragraph 45). The audit team examined the minutes of the assessment boards at the College and noted their full and detailed nature and the careful consideration of individual student performance.

41 In its meetings with the University, the audit team discussed this general structure and, in particular, the fact that no University staff were involved in a process which entailed, in effect, making University awards up to the level of the ordinary degree. The University's position is that its interests are represented and safeguarded by the respective chief external assessors. This position has been constant since the beginning of the link. However, when a chief external assessor is absent, the University is left with no formal representation at a board where its awards are being made - a situation which is common at the spring meetings.

42 More recently, in 2003, one of the 'host' University assessment boards noted a suggestion to appoint 'a member of the [University] Assessment Board who should be present at the meeting of the College's Board', although this was not pursued. In relation to the same issue and without doubting the evident integrity and competence of the current post-holder, the audit team was of the view that the appointment of the Principal and Dean as Chair of the College Assessment Board might be seen to create a conflict of interest. In essence, the University appears to have delegated significant authority to the College in some aspects of the conduct of assessment - an authority which might perhaps be more common in an accredited institution rather than one which is delivering franchised programmes. This may be wholly appropriate in the case of the College; nevertheless, the University may wish to consider the current structure of assessment boards under the partnership, in the context of discharging its responsibilities as the awarding body.

43 The audit team also considered the issue of feedback to students on their assessed work. The team was told by students it met at the College that they received little or no feedback on assessment (with the exception of the PDP modules). This confirmed a similar observation by students during the event held in May 2003 which validated the honours routes at the College and included a recommendation that the College 'considers ways to improve feedback to students on assessment'. Given the expectations of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students, the University may wish to consider the provision of appropriate feedback to students on assessed work 'in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement'.

External assessors (external examiners)

44 The Commentary stated that an appropriate number of subject external assessors are appointed by the University for each College programme, with two chief external assessors covering respectively the programmes linked to ESD and BNE. (The title 'external assessor' is synonymous with 'external examiner'.) Appointments are made according to the University's normal procedures and the team heard that the subject external assessors, who are drawn more 'locally' from Oman or the Indian subcontinent, are often nominated by the College. In these cases, the external assessors are not always able to attend induction or training events held at the University, but are inducted through a combination of written materials supplied by the University and guidance from senior staff of the College. In the view of the team, the appointment and induction of external assessors meet the expectations of the Code of practice.

45 All external assessors' reports follow the normal pattern of receipt and consideration in the University. They are sent in the first instance to the Clerk to Senate and then circulated to the Director of Quality, the Dean of School and other appropriate school staff. In the case of this collaborative partnership, the reports are also sent to the host programme board at the University and the sub-programme board at the College. It is the responsibility of the board at the College to respond to issues raised by the external assessors, evidence of which the team saw through the APAs. Responses to the reports of chief external assessors are coordinated by the Director of Quality. The team concluded that external assessor reports were treated in an appropriate manner by both the College and the University. The well-established process to ensure that such reports are received, considered and acted upon at all levels is identified in the audit as a positive feature of the partnership.

The arrangements for the support of students (including staffing)

Liaison and administration

46 Day-to-day management of the link is through the appointment of a liaison officer in each institution. The Commentary also stated that, at strategic level, there was regular contact between senior staff of the University and the Principal and Dean of the College.

47 The College maintains its own deliberative structure with the Academic Council as the senior committee. As described in the FPLH, the role of the Academic Council is the 'effective implementation of the processes and procedures to review, monitor and enhance the quality and standards of their academic provision and for the implementation of the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy'. The Principal and Dean, as Chair of the Academic Council, submits a synoptic report of business soon after each meeting to the University's Liaison Officer who is responsible for passing appropriate issues to school boards. The full minutes of the Academic Council follow the same route after they have been prepared.

48 The audit team noted the regular work of the College programme boards in considering external assessor reports, compiling the APA, receiving and discussing SSCG minutes, and reviewing admissions statistics. The minutes of the boards were generally of high quality. The minutes of the relevant University programme boards indicated that College matters were discussed but, although the boards regularly received the minutes of the College's sub-board, the consideration of these was limited.

49 The audit team found that the links between the committee structures of the two institutions were not entirely robust. The Chair's Report from the College Academic Council did not always appear to be considered in any detail and, in particular, some of the institutional-level issues it raised could go unresolved or unanswered for some time. The University is aware of some of these communication difficulties: the 2000 IQA, for example, found the 'lack of communication and dialogue between the host P[rogramme] B[oard]s at [the University] and what is effectively a sub-Programme Board at [the College] to be extremely unsatisfactory'. Similarly, five years' on, the 2005 IQA recommended 'that a better demonstration of the consideration and action from the Host Programme Boards at [the University] to any Chairman's Report and/or [College] Programme Board minutes is required'. Given the emphasis placed on the role of the programme boards, the University will no doubt wish to resolve this issue of communications. The team heard during the visit to the College of its intention to establish a 'Glasgow Liaison Group' to mirror the work of the Oman Group at the University and generally to improve communications. This will doubtless serve a useful purpose although it will not, in itself, provide a solution to this longstanding issue.

50 Student data on progression and achievement is recorded by the College and presented and analysed in the APA. Assessment data is forwarded to the University following each assessment board at the College. The College also keeps detailed individual student files with a basic record being sent to the University.

Staffing and staff development

51 The College is responsible for the appointment of suitably qualified academic staff who meet the required standards of both the University and the Omani authorities. The University has created the opportunity to monitor the quality of appointments through considering all staff for associate lecturer status. This status is awarded against set criteria which include appropriate qualifications and teaching experience and is formally approved by APC. The College staff met by the audit team appeared to value this status, and the team considered it to be a useful contribution to the maintenance of quality and academic standards in the partnership.

52 Apart from the formal channel of communication created by the establishment of liaison officers in each institution, there are also direct links between academic staff. The Commentary and other documentation considered by the audit team suggested that such communication had been difficult in the opening years of the partnership. However, in meetings with staff from both institutions, the team was told that there had been significant improvements and that, in particular, module leaders maintained regular contact over matters of curriculum and assessment.

53 The AAA includes a commitment by the University to assist in the development of College staff through periods of secondment to the University and by facilitating staff development at the College. The audit team noted that the College had its own regular system of staff appraisal with a clear link to identifying staff development needs. These might take the form of registration for a higher degree, conference attendance, or other opportunities for enhanced scholarship and research. The University contributes to such staff development in an increasingly systematic manner. Staff exchanges and visits have taken place, and there is some collaboration in respect of research. Following a recent visit from the Head of the University's Academic Practice Unit, there are plans to offer the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education to College staff. A number of staff are also registered on PhD programmes at the University. This type of assistance has grown noticeably in the last four to five years and, in support of the College's own staff development programme, can only serve to enhance the partnership.

Provision of information and support for students

54 The audit team was supplied with a range of recruitment materials which was attractively produced and clearly acknowledged the College's relationship with the University. Programme handbooks were thorough in their coverage of curriculum and assessment matters. These are issued to students at registration, when the College also issues booklets which include its own domestic regulations for students. The University does not provide separate induction materials for students. Staff of the University told the team that, in general, University handbooks would only be given to those students who transferred, and students met by the team confirmed that most of the information they received concerning the University was contained in College materials.

55 There is no regular or structured contact between students and University staff, although it was evident that staff visiting the College made arrangements to meet student groups where possible. Students at the College clearly valued these meetings and the audit team heard that they would appreciate further and more regular contact. In particular, they would welcome more input to teaching and related activities during staff visits. The University may wish to consider these requests as it further develops its schedule of visits to the College.

56 The FPLH requires the College to establish SSCGs according to the guidelines contained in the QAEH. These regulate the frequency of meetings, the membership of the groups, the chairing arrangements, and indicate probable agenda items. The QAEH states that SSCGs are 'one of the principal mechanisms used...to evaluate the student experience' and the University has, therefore, been careful to ensure that they are formally established and operate according to its requirements. One of the recommendations of the 2005 IQA, for example, was to encourage a more formal approach by SSCGs to their minutes to ensure that an authorised record of issues discussed and resolved was kept.

57 The audit team duly noted the informal approach of the SSCGs although, in discussion with students, it was told that this was a preferred method of operation and that they were satisfied that their voice was heard. The team further noted that SSCGs were generally constituted according to the University's requirements and were chaired by a student representative. The treatment of the business of SSCGs at programme boards and in APAs was systematic, with the outcomes from these meetings discussed and major issues incorporated in the APA process. In addition, students have the opportunity to complete module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) which are issued at the end of each semester. Data collected from this source is used to provide evidence on student satisfaction with modules to inform APAs.

58 Overall, the audit team was satisfied that opportunities were routinely provided for student feedback on academic and non-academic aspects of their experience. The University is not directly involved in these processes, although the commendable treatment of SSCG matters in the APA (where an analysis of key issues is presented and the minutes of meetings are included as an appendix) gives the University ample evidence of student involvement in quality assurance. Students were also able to furnish the team with several examples of changes that had occurred as a result of SSCG discussion or the outcome of MEQs.

59 In respect of student entitlements, the AAA makes a commitment that students will 'enjoy the privileges and access to the facilities of the University as may be provided at a distance, or electronically'. As students at the College do not appear to receive any significant information directly from the University, it was not clear to the audit team how they were made aware of their entitlements. Reference has already been made (see paragraph 18) to the continuing problems surrounding the delivery of electronic access to the University's VLE, its library and My Caledonian. The College's reaction to these delays has been to develop its own intranet and to investigate subscriptions to information databases through other suppliers.

60 The Commentary did not cover appeals and complaints procedures for students. In discussion with staff of the University, the audit team heard that the procedure in place at the College was broadly similar to that at the University. Students were able to make an initial appeal within the College's own process, but this would be reported to the University to allow a check on the outcome. The team was also told that students in Oman would have access to the University appeals procedure if necessary. The College's own appeals process is advertised to students in both programme handbooks and in College Rules for Students. In scrutinising the College process, the team noted that the Academic Appeals Committee was given the right to dismiss an appeal where it deemed that a case was not sufficiently strong and that the student then had 'no further right of appeal'. Where cases are heard, and where they involve a student at level 3 (and presumably level 4, since the extant process was last published prior to the upgrading of programmes to honours), the University's Academic Appeals Committee is involved if a student appeal is deemed successful. However, this additional step is designed to ensure that the University 'is informed of the appeal itself and the outcome' rather than permitting a student access to the University procedures.

61 In discussion with students, there was some knowledge of the College's internal appeals process but none of the University process, or of any student right to access it. This was unsurprising since no information is offered to students in this area. In the view of the audit team, the University is not meeting the expectations of the Code of practice, Section 5: Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters, since it does not clearly distinguish the responsibilities of itself and its partner, and does not make clear the channels through which a student can contact it, as the awarding body, directly. The University may wish to consider the interface between its appeals procedure and that of the College.

Student progression to the UK

62 Although the partnership between the University and the College was founded on the concept of articulation, the majority of students now complete their degree studies at the College. However, the College does offer the first two levels of the University's BEng programme, for which transfer is necessary for completion of the full degree. Arrangements for such transfers are shared between the two institutions, with the University making available written materials and the College offering more direct advice. The audit team met students who were in the process of arranging a transfer to the University; they expressed their satisfaction with the level of support and guidance from both partners.

Conclusion

63 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following positive features:

the sound and thorough approval process at programme level (paragraph 28)
the constructive application of the internal quality audit process to the partnership (paragraph 34)
the University's capacity to be open and self-critical in evaluating its role in the partnership (paragraph 34)
the well-established process to ensure that external assessor reports are received, considered and acted upon at all levels (paragraph 45).

64 The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by the University as it develops its partnership arrangements:

the adequacy of the Academic Affiliation Agreement in stating the University's responsibility for academic standards (paragraph 10)
the clearer articulation of policy and strategy for overseas collaborative activities and designation of a focus for such activities in the University's deliberative structure (paragraph 19)
the possibility of building into the Academic Affiliation Agreement more flexibility regarding residual obligations to students in the case of termination of the partnership (paragraph 21)
the introduction of a more systematic approach to monitoring publicity materials (paragraph 23)
the arrangements for qualitative monitoring of admissions to the College (paragraph 38)
the structure of assessment boards under the partnership (paragraph 42)
the provision of appropriate feedback to students on assessed work (paragraph 43)
the interface between the University's appeals procedure and that of the College (paragraph 61).

In general, the audit team considered that the University was operating the partnership with an appropriate regard for the advice contained in the Code of practice. Where the team found exceptions, or aspects of the University's practice which could be improved in the context of the Code, these are identified in the main report among the points for further consideration.

65 It is notable that some of the points raised in the audit may be a function of the way in which the University expresses its understanding of the nature of the partnership. The University refers to the arrangement as a series of franchised programmes but often acts, by its own definition, as if the College were an accredited institution. An element of confusion which might at the outset simply be a matter of nomenclature has, in the long term, a more fundamental impact with the potential to impede the development of the partnership.

66 This collaborative partnership clearly benefits from the quality of the work undertaken at the College, especially in respect of the annual programme analyses, sound admissions practices, efficient programme boards, the involvement of students in quality assurance and a fast-growing staff development programme. In this sense, the audit team found it difficult to conceive of the College as a passive partner delivering franchised courses, regarding it more as an active contributor to the further development and enhancement of the link. The maturity of the College also contributes greatly to a stable base in respect of quality assurance and academic standards. The University may wish to reflect on the ways in which it can recognise and build upon that maturity to the benefit of both partners.

67 The Commentary for this audit provided a generally accurate account of the partnership between the University and the College, although it was not always comprehensive in its coverage or analysis. The University did not state whether it considered the link with the College to be representative of its procedures and practice in other overseas collaborative arrangements, although it did state that it had adopted the main principles of the arrangement as a model for other emerging overseas collaborations. While the audit team would recommend that the University review its practice in some areas, the findings of the audit support a conclusion of confidence in the University's stewardship of academic standards and oversight of the quality of the student experience in this overseas collaboration.

Appendix A

Glasgow Caledonian University's (GCU) commentary on the link between the University and Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman (CCEO)

The University welcomes the report of the audit on the collaboration with CCEO. We believe that this relationship has evolved and matured over the past 10 years and have full confidence in their ability to deliver our programmes. This has enabled the development and expansion of the range of subject areas to include Masters provision in Business Information Technology, Maintenance Management and Computing, currently scheduled for academic session 2006-07.

Following the report the University can confirm that issues identified such as communication and our collaborative processes are under review and will be further strengthened. CCEO has also reacted positively to the report and has established a 'Glasgow Liaison Group' to improve dissemination of information amongst their staff and students.

There has been an increase in staff development activity with CCEO staff delivering lectures and seminars at GCU, this activity will be encouraged and fully supported. In addition, we are currently negotiating with CCEO to offer their staff the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

We continue to progress the issue of student access to services and are actively moving towards earlier registration of students to ensure early access to databases.

Appendix B

Student Numbers as at October 2005

Programme	Registered Student Numbers
BSc Hons in Built Environment (Environmental Civil Engineering)	80
BSc Hons in Built Environment (Civil Engineering)	34
BSc Hons in Built Environment (Construction Engineering)	32
BSc Hons in Built Environment (Quantity Surveying)	70
BSc Hons in Engineering (Electronic Engineering)	63
BSc Hons in Engineering (Computer Engineering)	92
BSc Hons in Engineering (Telecommunications Engineering)	210
BSc Hons in Engineering (Electrical Power Engineering)	45
BSc Hons in Engineering (Computer Aided Mechanical Engineering)	103
BSc Hons in Engineering (Process Operations & Maintenance)	132
BSc Hons in Engineering (Mechatronics)	55
BEng Level 1 and 2	28
Foundation Studies programme	248
Total	1192

ISBN 1 84482 423 3