Introduction
1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a UK organisation
which aims to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards
of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. It provides
public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the
needs of students, employers and the funders of higher education. One of QAA's
activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher
education institutions and some of their partner organisations in other countries.
In the Spring of 1999, QAA audited selected partnership links between UK universities
and private colleges in Malaysia. The purpose of the audits was to provide information
on the way in which the UK institutions of higher education were maintaining
academic standards and quality of education in their partnerships with institutions
in Malaysia.
The process of audit overseas partnership links
2 In planning these audits of overseas collaborative provision, QAA had
invited all UK institutions to provide a list of their collaborative links
with Malaysian partners, and on the basis of this information on the range
and scale of UK links with Malaysian partners, engineering was selected
as the subject focus for the audit. Each of the UK universities whose collaborative
link had been selected for the audit provided for QAA a Commentary describing
the way the partnership operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of
the means by which the university assured quality and standards in the
link. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its Commentary,
to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of
procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity or specific
to this link, subject or country. QAA identified six UK universities which
had established arrangements where most or all of the educational provision
was delivered through a Malaysian partner, and these UK universities were
visited by small teams of auditors to discuss the arrangements with appropriate
staff and to look at relevant documentation.
3 Audit teams visited the Malaysian partner institutions to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institution's Commentary and from the UK visit. At each of the visits in Malaysia, further documentation about the link was made available to the team, and discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. In addition members of the team, who included subject specialists in engineering, were able to see facilities and resources available to the students and examples of students' work.
4 A further 14 institutions whose collaborative arrangements were limited to entry 'by advanced standing' were not visited in the UK, but members of the audit team visited their Malaysian partners. A separate overview report of the whole 1999 audit of partnership links with Malaysia has been produced which provides a summary of the common themes emerging from the audit.
The context of collaborative provision with Malaysian
partners
5 Until 1998, no private college in Malaysia was permitted to offer
an undergraduate degree programme through collaborative provision conducted
entirely within the college. Some part of the programme was required to
be undertaken in the degree awarding partner institution, and collaborative
links with UK institutions therefore required students to transfer from
the Malaysian college to the UK institution for the completion of their
programme, typically in a 1+2 or 2+1 articulation arrangement. In 1998,
the Malaysian Ministry of Education introduced the '3+0' arrangement whereby
it could approve a strategic selection of collaborative provision for delivery
to undergraduate degree level entirely within Malaysian private colleges.
It is currently Malaysian Government policy that any UK collaborative undergraduate
degree-level programmes that can be completed entirely within a Malaysian
private college must be formally approved by the Malaysian Minister of
Education as a '3+0' programme (irrespective of the actual duration of
the programme). Any such programme that has not received approval as a
'3+0' programme is operating outside the Malaysian regulatory framework.
The University's statement in respect of this partnership link is attached
as Appendix B.
The background to the partnership
6 This report considers the franchise to the Institut Teknologi Pertama
(ITP, or the Institut) by The Robert Gordon University (the University)
of the final year of the University's Scottish three-year degree programme
leading to the award of BSc in Electronic and Electrical Engineering. This
level of a Scottish Ordinary degree is also referred to as level SD3. Entry
to this final year route is open to Institut students through completion
at a specified level of ITP's own diploma programme, and to holders of
similar diplomas through a bridging course.
7 The University's Commentary on this partnership link stated that its purposes in establishing collaborations with non-UK institutions were: 'to facilitate access to advanced higher education programmes'; to broaden 'the recognition and certification of learning' in other institutions; and 'to promote the role of the University as a provider of quality educational programmes'. The collaboration with ITP was the University's first franchise, and it has served as a vehicle for developing procedures and arrangements that have been adopted for subsequent franchise initiatives. The Commentary stated that 'the BSc programme is now franchised to one UK and three overseas institutions; common standards and operational practices have been readily accepted and implemented'. Although the University made no explicit statement about the extent to which the collaborative link with ITP was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, the reference in the Commentary to 'common standards and operational practices' was interpreted by the audit team as implying that the procedures adopted for assuring quality and standards in this link were representative of the University's approach to its other franchise arrangements.
8 The Institut Teknologi Pertama is a college of some 2,500 students housed in a number of modern terraced units in a suburb of Kuala Lumpur. It is approved by the Malaysian government, and aims, in its vision statement, to be 'the leading institute of higher learning with total commitment on quality and learning culture'.
9 The team members who conducted the UK visit to The Robert Gordon University were: Dr D J Buckingham, Mr C J Morgan and Dr R A H Robinson. The members who visited Institut Teknologi Pertama in Malaysia were: Dr D J Buckingham, Mrs N J Channon, Mr C J Morgan and Mr D J Myers.
10 The Memorandum of Co-operation between the University and ITP was signed in December 1993, and has served as a model for the standard memorandum now used by the University in other collaborations. It is stated in the Memorandum, as one of the principal aspects of the agreement, that 'should the collaborative programme require approval from any Malaysian government department or agency, it shall be the responsibility of ITP to secure such approval'.
11 Although the Memorandum for the ITP link was deficient in not specifying how the University would control publicity and in not defining the period of validity of the agreement, both of these points have been remedied in the current model agreement. The audit team considered, however, that both documents could specify more clearly the responsibilities of the University to its students should it feel compelled to terminate the agreement. The team noted that the franchised course had been modified by the introduction of a compulsory bridging course, and that the University might wish to update the six year old agreement with ITP to reflect this change and bring it within the University's current practice.
12 Students on the franchised course at ITP are registered as students of the University. They are eligible for the ITP award of Advanced Diploma and, on graduation in Aberdeen, for the award of BSc, normally conferred in absentia. Hitherto the degree certificate has not stated where the course was studied, but the audit team learnt that in future this would be stated on the certificate. In its own statement, ITP described the franchised course as follows: 'In collaboration with The Robert Gordon University (RGU), ITP conducts (an) Advanced Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. The Advanced Diploma adopts the final year curriculum of the RGU BSc and is subject to moderation by RGU'. The team considered that this was a somewhat oblique reference to the exact relationship between the awards of Advanced Diploma and the Scottish Ordinary Degree, and did not make clear the facility available to students who had gained the Advanced Diploma to convert it to the award of BSc merely by attending an RGU graduation ceremony.
13 At its visit to the University, the audit team heard that ITP had sent to the University brochures relating to the franchised course, but staff who met the team reported that they could not be certain that all publicity material was accurate. At ITP, the view expressed to the team by senior staff was that they were aware of the parameters within which ITP might advertise, and would contact the University if it wished to go outside them. While there was no evidence that ITP had acted contrary to this practice, the team considered that the University could have made greater efforts to ensure that it had control over publicity. For example, the team saw a Testimonial Letter issued to students on the franchised course, generated by ITP on University notepaper saying inter alia that the degree 'is fully accredited by the Institution of Electronic and Electrical Incorporated Engineers'. While this is true for the course delivered at the University, it is not true for the course delivered through the franchise at ITP, and the team felt that this letter was misleading. Given the interest shown by ITP students in the issue of accreditation, the University will wish to ensure that accurate information is supplied to them.
Responsibility for quality and standards
14 The University conducted a review of all of its quality assurance and quality control procedures, culminating in the publication in May 1998 of a revised Academic Quality Handbook (hereafter Handbook). As part of this revision, the University updated its procedures and arrangements for quality assurance in academic collaboration, including overseas franchising, for implementation in session 1998-99. The University also had regard for the Code of Practice of the Council of Validating Universities and the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision, 2nd edition (1996). The quality control and quality assurance procedures detailed in the Handbook, a generally clear and comprehensive guide, are applicable to the partnership link with ITP.
15 Responsibility for the oversight and maintenance of academic standards lies with the Academic Council of the University. Responsibility for the approval of collaborations rests with the University's Planning Executive Group in the first instance. Following the approval event, the line of reporting is through the Committee on Teaching, Learning and Assessment (CTLA), which reports to the Academic Council. The appropriate faculty is responsible for managing the course, principally at school level. A member of staff of the parent school has responsibility as 'Moderator' for monitoring the course, and reporting to the school, which in turn reports to its faculty board. Following the review of 1998, both the monitoring and the assessment processes now pass through the appropriate committees of the parent course at the University, an arrangement that the team considered to be entirely appropriate for a franchised course.
16 ITP is responsible for appointing a Course Leader and Course Committee for the franchise, who are responsible, through the parent School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, to the University's Board of the Faculty of Science and Technology for the conduct of the franchise at ITP. The Course Leader is responsible to the Principal of ITP for day-to-day course management.
The approval process for this partnership link
17 The link with ITP sprang from a number of visits by senior staff from both institutions culminating in the approval, in 1993, of this franchise of the final (third) year of the University's Scottish Ordinary degree programme in Electronic and Electrical Engineering. In its Commentary, the University states that the three-year period that elapsed between initial contact with ITP and the first intake of students was 'used in a constructive way to ensure that the ethos of teaching and learning and the ethos of quality assurance/control found within The Robert Gordon University would be replicated at ITP in respect of the franchise operation'. From documentation consulted and discussions with staff, the audit team was satisfied that the link had been appropriately developed and approved in line with the HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision.
18 Because the link with ITP was the University's first overseas collaboration it has, in some respects, acted as a pilot for overseas collaboration. The team learnt that the University had originally intended to review the franchise to ITP under its established procedures for the periodic review of Schools, in line with its policy of integrating such provision into its parent course. However, one of the outcomes of the review of the University's academic quality system (see above, paragraph 14) was that quinquennial review of franchise arrangements as separate entities would be more appropriate. The review of the collaborative link with ITP took place in December 1998. The small review panel was constituted in accordance with the criteria for such panels, and was convened by a member of academic staff of the University who was not a member of the School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering. The team formed the view that this review had been conducted in a thorough manner, with consideration of a review report from ITP and a visit to ITP to see examples of students' work and to gain feedback from students. Nevertheless, the team felt that the inclusion of the Moderator on the panel was not entirely appropriate in view of the Moderator's close involvement in managing the collaboration. Indeed, the University might reflect upon the criteria for composition of a review panel to consider whether they provide a panel with the independent objectivity expected of it. The report of the review panel will be considered by CTLA.
Quality of learning opportunities and student
support
19 The University explained, in its Commentary, that 'before
entering into joint ventures the University must satisfy itself that any
form of collaboration fulfils its educational principles and that each
partner institution provides a suitable learning environment for students
on courses leading to awards of the University'. Overseas partners are
expected to offer an 'appropriate regulatory framework and academic and
administrative policies and practices', including support for staff development.
The University assures and monitors the implementation of these expectations
and the quality of this environment through its approval and course monitoring
systems, by assisting in staff development, by monitoring student support
and by ensuring that adequate learning facilities are available. These
are all supported by systems for liaison and administration.
20 Staff of the University who met the team stressed that an additional purpose in their developmental role was to help staff of the Institut move teaching and learning toward a more proactive and student-centred approach.
21 The Moderator, who now makes at least two visits per year to ITP, has a crucial role in communicating between the partners in this link, in smoothing collaboration between them and in advising the Institut on all aspects of the collaboration. From its visit to the University, the audit team understood that his duties included moderation of assessed work, and questioned the wisdom of relying on a single individual to perform so many roles, and the possible conflict in combining the role of managing and developing the collaboration with that of participating in student assessment (see also below, paragraph 40). The University later stated that, in the 1998 revision of its academic quality procedures, it 'had addressed any ambiguity over the role of the Moderator', and the Moderator no longer had the role of moderating assessed work. The University accepted that the School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering had not, at the time of the audit visit, fully implemented the revised procedures. The Moderator's annual reports, now following a prescribed checklist, feed into the University's annual course appraisal procedures. The team noted from the documents available to it that some reports raised critical assessment issues without any apparent feedback.
22 From its discussions with staff and students at ITP, the audit team found evidence of a functioning system in which students felt they could participate. The team also found that the administrative arrangements at ITP, especially the student record system, aligned well with those of the University, and while the timely provision of degree certificates seemed to be a continuing point of contention, the team noted the University's view that 'all details involved in the issue of degree certificates' should be carefully verified irrespective of any delay.
23 In respect of the University's internal programmes, annual course appraisal reports are prepared by course leaders in accordance with a standard template. At ITP, in respect of the franchised course, the Course Leader and his team at ITP produce annual course appraisal reports in accordance with the University template and with the help of the Moderator. The audit team noted that the review of December 1998, rather than the monitoring process, had drawn critical attention to surprising similarities in successive annual reports. It did not appear, from this evidence, that the University had yet achieved its aim to develop a self-critical approach at the Institut; the team suggests that might assist this aim if ITP were to receive as a matter of routine constructive feedback from the University on its annual report.
24 Following the 1998 review, University procedures now stipulate that
the parent Course Management Team should first receive and scrutinise the
ITP report before taking it to School Executive. However, although the
latest ITP report was available at the time of the audit team's visit to
the University, it had not yet been considered by the Course Management
Team despite opportunity to do so. The team believes that this closer link
between the parent and the franchised course is valuable, and encourages
the University to implement its revised procedures to ensure that this
closer link is used in a timely way to support the development of the Institut
in teaching at final year degree level.
25 Resource constraints at ITP limit the number of option modules available so that the students, in practice, have no choice of modules. In this respect, the BSc final year course franchised to the Institut is not identical to the parent course. Institut staff have copies of the outline syllabuses of the parent course, and use these together with past examination papers (with model solutions) to develop teaching plans, which are checked by the Moderator. Similarly, Institut staff have seen the titles of projects undertaken at the University, and have used these to develop project titles of their own, which are submitted to the Moderator for approval. The team noted that these arrangements devolved considerable responsibility to ITP staff who, in discussions with the team, expressed their keenness to benefit from developmental support from the University to gain more experience of effective teaching at level SD3. The University stated that 'substantial guidance' to staff at ITP was also provided through materials such as teaching notes for each unit, sets of tutorial support papers and laboratory guidance sheets, but staff of the Institut who met the team could not confirm that such materials were uniformly available to them.
26 The University undertook to satisfy itself that there were adequate resources at ITP for course delivery, in respect of comparability with the parent course of the student experience, before the franchise went ahead. The Moderator has continued to monitor the position, and the audit team heard from staff at ITP of the requirements placed upon the Institut by the University for the provision of resources to support the franchised course. From its visit to ITP, the team considered that library and practical resources were adequate to support delivery at level SD3. ITP now has Internet facilities, but students, unlike those at the University, have to pay for their use. The University will no doubt wish to monitor carefully through its annual appraisal process the appropriateness to the franchise of the resources available at ITP, and to give the Institut guidance and support in the enhancement of its resources for learning at the final year level of this Scottish Ordinary degree.
Student information and support
27 Students on the franchised course at ITP receive the definitive BSc course document given to students on the parent course at the University as well as an Institut handbook for the Advanced Diploma. The BSc definitive document, containing information on all three years of the degree programme, did not seem to the audit team to be the most helpful way to meet the aim of giving clear information to students on the franchised final year. The University might wish to consider preparing a special handbook for its students at ITP. Information to students about individual modules and classes is provided by the teaching staff at the Institut. The team noted that a 'University information corner' had recently been established in the library at ITP.
28 Under the Memorandum of Co-operation, provision of student support services is the responsibility of ITP, and the University makes no specifications on this matter. From its discussions at the Institut, the audit team learnt that students received advice from their tutors, and that the Institut provided advice and help for students on applications for employment, on accommodation, and personal counselling. The Institut's most recent annual course appraisal report noted the need for students to be in more regular contact with their project tutors, but some students who met the team reported that they saw their tutors less frequently than once a month. The team considered that the University might interest itself rather more actively in the matter of the support available to students on its franchised course.
29 The University uses its own student feedback form, and students at ITP who discussed these matters with the team expressed confidence that when they raised issues at the course committee they would receive a response. However, the team found that they were not well informed about matters relating to assessment and student appeals. While the Memorandum makes clear that students have a right of appeal against a decision of the Board of Examiners 'in accordance with University Regulations', the team felt that, again, the University could do more to communicate clearly on these matters with its students at ITP.
30 The audit team discussed with students at the Institut the support for
learning that they received with projects and similar assigned work. Projects
in the franchised course can be conducted individually or by a group of
students. The team felt that the project reports that it saw at the Institut
were not models of good practice at final year degree level. Examples of
reports produced by individual students from a group project were so similar,
one to another, that it was hard to distinguish, or evaluate, individual
contributions. Written formative feedback to students on their performance
in assessed work was slender. Reports on projects and assigned work were
seen to rely heavily on material published elsewhere, and were considered
by the team to be generally lacking the clear objectives and underpinning
analysis that would be expected of work at level SD3. These comments do
not imply any lack of inherent ability of the staff of the Institut to
supervise projects and assignments effectively, but refer to apparent uncertainty
in the present understanding by staff of what students should be able to
achieve and demonstrate in their final year of study. They do suggest that
the University should be making more effort to support ITP in developing
the skills of Institut staff for supporting students at level SD3, and
the understanding of its students in the expectations and criteria of achievement
at this level. The team noted that the Moderator was implementing a series
of seminars for ITP staff on project supervision.
Staffing and staff development
31 The audit team noted the relatively low profile accorded in the documentation and in its meetings at the University to the qualifications and experience of, and staff development for, those teaching on the franchised course. At present, the University exercises only retrospective control over staffing by receiving the names of new staff sometimes up to 12 months after they had begun teaching, and by asking the Moderator to report annually on staffing. The team noted that the review panel report of December 1998 stated that only one member of the teaching team remained from previous years, indicating that a substantial turnover of teaching staff had taken place during the five-year operation of the franchise. The team came to the view that quality of learning opportunities and student support would be better assured if the University involved itself more closely with the monitoring of appointments to the teaching team at the Institut.
32 Similarly, the audit team considered that developmental support from the University for teaching staff at the Institut was limited. Visits to the University by ITP staff take place annually, but these are largely for senior staff. Except for the Moderator, University staff visits are infrequent. ITP staff reported to the team that although they did not have regular contact by email with their opposite numbers on the parent course, that means of communication was becoming more widely used. The University later emphasised that 'staff from ITP are invited on a regular basis to the University but there is a cost implication involved for ITP and this has inhibited the take up'. The team recognises the 'cost implication' as a challenge, and would encourage the University to seek alternative cost-effective ways of supporting the professional development of staff teaching the franchised course. Assistance in teaching and assessment has largely taken the form of supplying documentation, and ITP staff seem to have gauged the expectations of work at level SD3 mainly from the University's examination papers. The Institut operates its own well-structured staff development programme, and staff of the Institut expressed the view that they would welcome greater contribution by the University to a structured programme of staff development. The team endorses the view of the December 1998 review panel that more visits by University staff would be further means of assuring and enhancing the quality of the partnership link. The team suggests that such staff development could usefully have a particular focus on both formative and summative assessment of students, and on expectations of project work at this level.
33 From documentation available to it in the UK, and from its discussions with staff at The Robert Gordon University, the audit team formed the view that the University placed confidence in the staff of ITP, guided and monitored by the Moderator, to provide a good quality of learning opportunity and student support. From its visit to the Institut the team considered that, while the staff of the Institut worked hard to justify that confidence, the learning opportunities and support available to students were limited by the relative inexperience of the teaching staff in working at the final year level of a Scottish Ordinary degree programme, and would benefit from a greater involvement of the University in supporting the Institut in the development of staff skills and student expectations for academic work at this level. In this respect, the team considered that the University was not fully satisfying the principle, set out in its Commentary, that the arrangements for the collaboration should 'enhance institutional and educational development'.
Assurance of the standards of awards
34 The University states in its Handbook that the 'key objective
of the University's quality assurance and quality control procedures is
to seek to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of its academic standards
[through] involvement of external peers in validation, review, examining'.
The standard of the award 'should be the same as that maintained for a
corresponding or comparable award at the University', and entry to a programme
is based on 'a reasonable expectation that [a student] will be able to...achieve
the standard of the award'.
35 An annex to the Memorandum specifies the standards for entry on to the franchised course. All diploma students, whether or not from ITP, are now required to undertake a 'bridging' course before the start of the franchised course. The audit team understood from its discussions at ITP that this course had been introduced at the initiative of the Institut to help diploma students adjust to the requirements of the final year degree course, and, in particular, to improve standards of English language. In the University's view the bridging course has 'served as a further ''filter'' to the admissions process'. The student success rate indicates that the standards of entry and commitment to the franchised course have been satisfactory.
36 A recent development in the operation of the franchise has been the
admission of students to the course in two cohorts, with the module order
inverted for one cohort to permit synchronisation of examinations. This
seemed to be working satisfactorily.
37 Central to the integrity of the University's awards system is the role of the external examiners. The parent BSc programme has two external examiners, one an academic and the other a professionally-qualified non-academic. For the final year course franchised to ITP, a local external examiner is employed who, under the Memorandum of Co-operation is nominated by ITP 'in accordance with the procedures of the University'. This Malaysia-based examiner receives the usual information pack by way of induction, which includes an assessment handbook.
38 Earlier in the operation of the franchise, ITP staff had set the assessments with moderation by University staff, but in recent years students of the franchised course have sat the same examinations as students on the parent course at the same GMT time. The audit team considered this to be a sound approach to assuring comparability of assessment between the franchised and parent courses. An exception to this is resit examinations, which are set, using a bank of past question papers, by Institut staff and moderated by the local examiner only. The University is urged to address this weakness by involving its UK internal and external examiners more actively in the process of setting all assessments. In its report, the 1998 review panel recorded that 'arrangements for the security of examination papers, invigilation and the information supplied to the Examination Committee were all considered satisfactory', and the team would endorse this.
39 ITP staff mark examinations, making use of model answers and marking schemes supplied by the University, and marked examinations and other assessments are moderated by the local external examiner. However, the audit team gained the impression from the assessed work that it saw at ITP that Institut staff did not receive much guidance from the University on good practice in marking at this final year level. The local external examiner's reports documented difficulties which had been encountered, particularly in respect of the setting of projects and coursework, and in assessing individual as well as collective achievements in group activities. The most recent report of this examiner commented on the poor presentation of project reports, a comment which the team would endorse, and a disappointing one for a course in its fifth year of operation. The team also considered that the standards of marking of the assessed work that it saw at the Institut, the written feedback given to students on how marks had been gained or lost, and the attention paid to plagiarism, merited greater guidance in these matters to staff of the Institut by the University. The University's recent decision, therefore, to enhance the processes for checking standards of attainment by asking the UK external examiners to sample examination scripts, projects and coursework, was welcomed by the team. The team was, therefore, concerned to learn that the promised process of sampling by the UK examiners had not been instituted for the most recent final examinations. The University later acknowledged that this sampling had not been implemented for the December 1998 examinations at ITP, and stated that 'the revised procedures in respect of assessment are now being instituted'.
40 There appeared to be some confusion about the status and nomenclature to be accorded to what the University designates an 'Examination Committee' at ITP, which makes recommendations to the University's Examination Board. The most recent set of minutes refers to the 'Examination Board for the Advanced Diploma' although the meeting concerned the BSc award. It appeared from the minutes that the University's Moderator played the major role at these meetings, again raising the team's concern about a potential conflict of roles. The University later explained that, following the 1998 revision of the Handbook, the Moderator attends meetings of the Examination Committee (if applicable) and 'is not now directly involved in the assessment process'.
41 The University's regulations on the award of a distinction were not followed by this Committee in that it varied the cut off mark for the award and always placed it above 70 per cent, the cut off mark defined by the University. The team could not understand this practice, which seemed to show a lack of confidence in the integrity of what were acknowledged to be very high average marks. The team saw no evidence that the University had investigated these high marks or the procedures adopted by the Examination Committee for dealing with them. The University later stated that, under its revised procedures, any necessary moderation would not be done by the Examination Committee but by the Examination Board of the parent course.
42 From its discussions with staff at The Robert Gordon University, and from the available documentation, the audit team formed the view that the University had identified weaknesses in assessment and moderation of student achievement on the franchised course and had taken steps to eliminate those weaknesses through its revised procedures. While recognising the efforts of the University to strengthen the processes for assuring the standards of the awards through this partnership link, the information gained by the team during its visit to the Institut somewhat reduced its confidence in the effectiveness of the action that had been taken to implement those procedures.
43 The University states in its Handbook that the standard of the award offered through a collaborative arrangement 'should be the same as that maintained for a corresponding or comparable award at the University'. In the light of the evidence available at the time of the audit visit, the audit team was not convinced that the University was in a position to guarantee that statement had been satisfied for the course franchised to ITP. The University later expressed the view that the timing of this audit was unfortunate in that the new academic quality procedures were in their first year of operation, and that therefore 'the effectiveness of the totality of the University's revised procedures has not been fairly evaluated'. The team recognises that the University's revised procedures have the potential to strengthen its ability to guarantee comparability of the standards of the awards of the franchised and parent courses. It is now important for the University to implement these procedures rigorously, and to support them with an active approach to developing the Institut's ability to deliver and assess work at final year degree level.
Conclusions
44 The University has set itself a challenging agenda in seeking to
replicate at the Institut Teknologi Pertama 'the ethos of teaching and
learning and the ethos of quality assurance/control' found within the University.
The collaborative partnership is well established, and the Institut appreciates
the help it has received from its partner but, significantly, indicated
to the audit team that it would welcome more developmental support. The
team would endorse the Institut's request for more assistance to develop
its own capabilities, and takes the view that the Institut deserves greater
support in the efforts that it is making to meet the University's expectations.
Much of this support has hitherto been either through the considerable
efforts of the Moderator to the partnership link, or in documentary form.
The University is invited to consider whether this approach has succeeded
in achieving the objectives it has set itself, and what further measures
it could take. An initial step might be to implement the recommendations
of its own review of the partnership link in December 1998 by establishing
closer links with teaching staff, and giving more guidance on project work.
The University operates this franchise with a 'lightness of touch' that
is justified in many respects, but in other respects is too 'light' to
provide effective guidance and support to help the Institut develop its
own educational aims, and enhance the experience of its students.
45 Equally, the University could do more to support its students and the staff at the Institut. At present it largely relies on the Institut to provide student information and support, with little guidance on what is expected of study at level SD3. In particular, students do not appear to receive the guidance which they are entitled to receive on the purposes and presentation of project work at this level, despite repeated evidence of this weakness having been made to the University in the reports of external examiners. Teaching staff of the Institut seemed not to have received the guidance on good practice in teaching and assessment at final year degree level that might have been expected in a collaboration now in its fifth year of operation.
46 The equivalence with the parent course of the academic standards attained by students on the franchised course merits the University's close attention. The University is not yet in a position to be fully confident that it can safeguard the academic standard of the award offered through the final year BSc franchise to ITP. The measures recently taken by the University to link the parent course at the University more closely with the franchised course through the monitoring and external examining systems are a positive step toward securing such confidence. Nevertheless, the University is encouraged to implement without delay its decision that its UK-based external examiners will be more involved in all aspects of the assessment of students studying at ITP, and to ensure that there is greater vigilance on such matters as plagiarism. Once again, the University is asked to consider how it might give more active guidance to staff of the Institut on the expectations of assessment and student achievement at the final year level of a Scottish Ordinary degree programme. In reflecting on these issues the University might also consider whether supporting the work of the Moderator by involving more members of the parent course team might assist in attaining the University's objectives.
47 In its Commentary, the University presented self-assessments of the development of the link, of the franchise arrangement and of its quality control and administrative arrangements. The University reflected, in the Commentary, upon how the experience of establishing and operating this, its first collaborative arrangement, 'has been a significant learning experience and has served as a model for the development of new arrangements'. The University recently reviewed all its academic quality procedures, including those relating to collaborative arrangements, resulting in the publication in 1998 of a revised version of its Academic Quality Handbook. These illustrations of the University's capacity to learn from operational experience support confidence in the University's willingness to take action to secure in its collaborative links the same quality and standards that it seeks to assure in its own internal educational provision.
Appendix A
Commentary on the audit report supplied by The Robert Gordon University
The University has already addressed the majority of the issues raised in the Report through its extensive review of procedures relating to academic collaboration. As the revised procedures were introduced only in Session 1998-99 the University accepts that, at the time of the audit visit, there were some areas where these new procedures had not been fully implemented. This was subsequently identified by the University through its internal academic quality audit system and corrective actions were taken.
Some issues have however been identified in the Report which require further actions by the University. In particular:
1 The University intends to revise its Memorandum of Co-operation to deal with issues relating to responsibilities to the students should it feel compelled to terminate any agreement. In addition, the need for University approval/notification of staffing changes will be emphasised more clearly. The Model Memoranda of Co-operation has already been revised to strengthen requirements relating to use of any marketing/communication materials used in the University's name.
2 It is intended that a student handbook will be developed to assist students on collaborative courses.
3 A programme of staff development will be implemented which will address, in particular, issues relating to project supervision and email contact.
Appendix B
Statement in respect of clarifying
'3+0'
Following receipt of correspondence from QAA on the issue of '3+0' the Assistant Principal (Academic Affairs) visited Malaysia and had a tripartite meeting with the Ministry of Education and ITP. As a result a submission by ITP for '3+0' approval was initiated and in the interim the University suspended all advertising of, and recruitment to, this collaborative arrangement.
The Principal and Vice-Chancellor also visited Malaysia and met with Dr Ariff Kasim of the Ministry and senior managers at ITP. The submission for '3+0' approval is currently at an advanced stage of being processed by the Ministry of Education and LAN and every support is being given to our partner institution in this matter.
Student numbers at Institut Teknologi Pertama
Course
BSc Electronic and Electrical Engineering
Number of graduates per session
1994-95 - 39
1995-96 - 50
1996-97 - 52
1997-98 - 53
Students currently registered (Session 1998-99)
38 (of which 14 completed in February)
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube