Introduction
1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (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 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 their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2004 QAA audited selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Sri Lanka. 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 of overseas partnership links
2 In June 2003, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in a range of overseas countries. Using this information, QAA approached a number of institutions which had indicated that they had established collaborative links with partner institutions in Sri Lanka. Following discussion, a variety of collaborative partnerships was selected for scrutiny. Each of the UK institutions whose collaborative link had been selected for the audit provided a Commentary describing the way in which the partnership operated, and discussing the effectiveness of the means by which the UK institution assured quality and standards in the link. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its Commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity, or specific to the partnership being audited. 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, Section 2: Collaborative provision (1999), (Code of practice), published by QAA, which took full effect in August 2000.
3 In the spring of 2004 audit visits were made to each UK institution to discuss its arrangements in the light of the Commentary. In May 2004, an audit team visited the partner institutions in Sri Lanka to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institution's Commentary and from the UK visit. During the visits to institutions in Sri Lanka, discussions were conducted with key members of staff, lecturers and students. The team for this audit comprised Dr D Furneaux, Professor P Hodson, Mrs P Lowrie, Mr C McIntyre, Ms S White, auditors, and Ms C. Smith, audit secretary. The UK and overseas audit exercise was coordinated for QAA by Mrs S Patterson, Assistant Director, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Sri Lanka for the willing cooperation provided to the team.
4 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between the University of Sunderland (the University) and Londontec International Computer School (Londontec). The audit was conducted on the basis of the visits by the audit team to the University and to Londontec in Sri Lanka and on the scrutiny of documentary evidence made available to the team. A series of meetings was held on 1 April 2004 between the team and staff of the University, followed by a visit on 9 May 2004 to Londontec where the team met staff and students involved in the programme.
5 At the time of the audit, the most recent audit of the University by QAA at institutional level was in December 2000. QAA audited the University's link with Foundation College/Unisund Athens (Greece) in 1997 and the link with Micro Center Institute (Bahrain) in 1998.
General background to the link
6 The subject of the audit was the collaboration between the University and Londontec for the delivery of levels 2 and 3 of the University's BSc (Hons) Computer Studies. An articulation arrangement recognises Londontec's International Academic Computing Diploma (IACD) as a level 1 qualification appropriate for direct entry to level 2 of the Computer Studies degree programme.
7 Londontec is a privately owned independent college, registered under the Sri Lanka Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission. It was established in 1989 and, at the time of the audit, had around 10,000 part-time students following courses in computing and electronics at 10 branches distributed throughout Sri Lanka; the BSc Computer Studies programme is offered only at the head office in Colombo.
8 The link between the University and Londontec was approved by the University in 1999 and is now designated under the University's models of collaborative provision as 'tutor supported delivery using University learning materials' (see paragraph 12). The Memorandum of Agreement for the operation of the BSc (Hons) Computer Studies was signed in January 2000 and the articulation Agreement for the IACD was signed in March 2001.
9 The BSc Computer Studies programme is delivered by local tutors using learning materials supplied by the University. The programme is based on the cognate undergraduate course taught at the University and the video-based study materials provided are intended to provide the students at Londontec with 'as near as possible an identical experience to those who study in Sunderland'. The home provision has recently been reviewed and will operate in its revised form at the University before being introduced overseas. Students study part-time, attending Londontec at weekends as most students are in full-time employment. This is the only degree-level programme offered at Londontec and its delivery is being closely monitored by the University. The cohort size is agreed between the University and its partner; the first cohort of 19 students started level 2 in January 2002 and, at the time of the audit, had yet to complete the programme. A second cohort of 14 students started in October 2003. The language of delivery and assessment is English.
The University's approach to overseas collaborative provision
10 The University has an extensive range of collaborative arrangements in the UK and internationally and considers this link to be fully representative of its procedures and practice in overseas collaborative provision. In meetings with University staff the audit team was told that the University had an ethos of partnership, that it saw a synergy between on and off-campus delivery, and that the arrangement with Londontec was typical of an expanding area of the University's activity, fulfilling part of its mission to bring education to the widest possible audience.
11 The University has modified its approach to collaborative provision in response to the continuation audit in 2000 which recommended that the University consider the advisability of 'continuing to strengthen the central oversight of collaborative provision, with particular attention to programmes offered in collaboration with partners overseas'. A significant element of the central oversight of collaborative provision is the role of the Centre for International Education (CIE) in the initial stages of approval of collaborative arrangements. The CIE has a role independent of the school in which the collaborative provision is based, being concerned with the business planning aspects, financial agreements and seeking references for new partnerships in the initial investigations of potential partnerships. Collaborative Provision Groups (CPGs) have been established at both School and University level, reporting to the relevant Quality Assurance Boards. The University Collaborative Provision Group (CPG) conducts an annual review of collaborative provision through the annual programme monitoring exercise.
12 In order to distinguish the key features of its wide range of partnerships the University has established a system of classification of models of collaborative provision. The different models specify the method of operation and requirements for approval, monitoring and review. The partnership with Londontec was established before the different types of University collaborative activity had been classified and the various models with their distinctive features developed. The Commentary identified the arrangement with Londontec as 'Tutor Supported Delivery Using University Learning Materials (University Model D)'. Under this arrangement 'the University collaborates with a partner which provides specialist resources, computing resources, tutor support and administrators as approved by the University. The University provides and quality assures all the learning materials'.
13 The CPG has been charged with considering University practice in relation to the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision. In the Commentary, the University stated that 'the management and quality assurance processes used for the distance learning operation of the BSc (Hons) Computer Studies programme complied with the QAA Code of Practice'.
Formal arrangements
14 For each collaborative partnership the University requires a Memorandum of Agreement and related contractual documentation to have been agreed by the CIE and the Pro Vice Chancellor and signed by both parties to the linkage. The related documentation includes a Financial Memorandum and comprehensive details of the arrangements for the operation and management of the programmes and the quality assurance arrangements, including monitoring and review requirements.
15 The Memorandum of Agreement for the collaborative arrangement was signed by both partners in January 2000. While recognising that the Agreement was drawn up by the University shortly after the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision was published, the audit team considered that it was not in alignment with the guidance in that section of the Code. The team was reassured to some extent by confirmation from staff that in any revised agreement with Londontec amendments would be made to cover the areas currently not in line with the Code, in particular: the arrangements for students should the University be forced to terminate due to unsatisfactory delivery; the duration of the approval and arrangements for review of the operation of the programme; responsibility for complaints, appeals and disciplinary arrangements; applicable law; changes in delivery methods; and the role of University staff in the recruitment of students. The University was able to provide a sample of a recent Memorandum of Agreement - International Operations for a different partnership which demonstrated the changes that the University had made in the drafting of agreements. While supporting the University in exercising caution in delivering the revised programme on campus before rolling it out overseas and noting the University's declared intention to link revision of the Memorandum of Agreement with the introduction of the revised BSc, the audit team was concerned that the current Memorandum of Agreement with its identified deficiencies would be in place for a further year and would encourage the University to consider drawing up a revised agreement as soon as possible.
16 The Memorandum of Agreement provides for Londontec to be responsible for publicity subject to the approval of all advertising and promotional material by the University. The audit team was satisfied that the formal procedures in place and the understanding between the Londontec Centre Manager and the Centre Leader about approval of such material would enable the University to have effective control of publicity relating to the collaboration.
17 At the time of audit, the first cohort of students had yet to complete their studies so no degree certificates had been issued. The Memorandum of Agreement indicated that the degree parchment produced by the University for a successful student would state that the student had been awarded a BSc (Hons) or BSc in Computer Studies and did not make reference to a transcript. The Memorandum of Agreement also stipulated that '...in the event of the introduction of any new requirements in the future by the UK Quality Assurance Agency...the University reserve[d] the automatic right to the implementation of amendments to the parchment'. The revised sample agreement made available to the audit team indicated that University practice in future would be to issue a transcript to accompany the degree parchment, the location of study would be recorded on the transcript and the parchment would make reference to the transcript. The team welcomes the change of approach and suggests that the University might consider signalling these changes to Londontec prior to the first cohort of students completing their studies.
The establishment, management and quality assurance of the link
18 The Memorandum of Agreement between the University and Londontec states that the general oversight of the programme including the maintenance of the academic standards of the programme will be exercised by the Academic Board of the University. The University's School of Computing and Technology is responsible for the academic oversight and the formal monitoring of collaborative provision through the work of the School Quality Assurance Board (SQAB).
The approval process
19 The University has developed detailed planning and operational requirements for international collaborative taught programmes and there are clear procedures for the approval of new overseas partners specified by the Quality Support section of Academic Services. The documentation relating to current University practice demonstrated that there was a strategic approach to the approval process, integrating the deliberations of the host school and the SQAB which provide the outline proposal, the work of the Quality Support section of Academic Services which draws up the draft memorandum of agreement, and the input from CIE which considers the legal status of the proposal, the business plan and risk assessment and the financial memorandum. A joint SQAB/University subgroup chaired by a member of the University CPG undertakes the final consideration of proposals.
20 From the documentation made available to the audit team, it was evident that, although the approval predated the establishment of the University's current procedures for the approval of collaborative arrangements, consideration of the arrangement with Londontec had included many of the now required elements, including a site visit, the production of a site report and a letter to the partner detailing additional resources requirements before delivery could begin. Consideration of the articulation arrangement for the IACD included modifications to the course content to ensure an appropriate curriculum match with the degree programme.
Monitoring and review processes
21 The University's School of Computing and Technology is responsible for the operation of the BSc (Hons) Computer Studies programme both on and off-campus within the UK and overseas. A School Associate Dean has overall strategic responsibility within the School for advanced practice operations which include off-campus provision. The day-to-day management of the link is carried out by a designated Centre Leader, appointed by the School, who liaises directly with the Managing Director of Londontec. The Managing Director acts as the Centre Manager for the collaborative arrangement and is assisted by a locally appointed Student Counsellor, whose appointment is a requirement for the tutor supported delivery model. The Centre Leader plays a crucial role as the contact person between staff and students at Londontec and the University.
22 Administratively, the collaborative arrangements are managed by staff of the Computing and Engineering Distance Education Centre (CEDEC), located within the School of Computing and Technology. CEDEC was established in 1994 and is responsible for the creation, delivery and administration of distance-learning programmes. CEDEC has as its principal objective 'to ensure that students studying at a distance are provided with the same high quality learning experience as those students studying on campus at the University of Sunderland'. CEDEC has developed a Handbook and Operating Manual which state clearly the requirements on the University and collaborative partners for delivery of a University programme by 'Centre Based Distance Learning'. The Operating Manual is available as an interactive CD. There is also a specifically appointed administrator for the link who is based in the School of Computing and Technology.
23 The University has clear guidelines and procedures for monitoring its home and collaborative provision at module and programme level. The focus of ongoing monitoring is at school level: feedback from the local tutor, administrator and students is received by module and programme boards which meet two or three times a year. The module and programme boards also monitor student performance and other relevant statistics.
24 The Centre Leader is required to produce an annual report incorporating a report produced by the partner institution, which is considered at the Programme Board of Studies. Guidelines are available to assist the partner in compiling the report. The annual report covering the first year of operation at Londontec was made available to the audit team and discussions by the team with staff at Londontec confirmed that they had been supported in drawing up the report by the provision of the guidelines and the Operating Manual.
25 Annual monitoring reports are programme based and must contain a section on collaborative provision, where relevant, indicating that a report for each partner has been considered. The annual monitoring report must also include information on, and evaluation of, the external examiners' reports.
26 Summative reports on the previous academic year produced by module and programme boards are considered by the SQAB. Representatives of the University Quality Assurance Board (QAB) from outside the School, one of whom is a member of the University CPG and has specific responsibility for consideration of the section on collaborative provision, attend the SQAB meetings and report back on the effectiveness of the school monitoring process and on the operation of the collaborative provision. The University CPG reports to the QAB and also receives all School annual monitoring reports to identify good practice and areas for further development.
27 At the end of each module students are required to complete a module quality feedback form; an on-line system developed by the School of Computing and Technology is being introduced to replace the current paper-based forms. The forms completed at Londontec are sent back to the University for analysis. There are also opportunities for students to provide direct feedback informally in discussions with the Centre Leader without Londontec staff present during his frequent visits to the centre. The Centre Leader is required to write to Londontec to provide feedback on actions taken in response to student feedback.
28 The Commentary did not include information about requirements for review of the collaborative provision but the University's Model D for Collaborative Provision, tutor-supported delivery using University learning materials, provides for review of a partnership to take place at the same time as the review of the parent programme. At the time of the audit, the University had just undertaken an internal review of the BSc Computer Studies programmes and indicated that it intended to proceed to a review of the collaborative arrangement with Londontec with a particular focus on the Memorandum of Agreement (see paragraph 15).
Comparison of student experience and achievement as between comparable programmes in the partner institution and the awarding institution
29 The model of tutor supported delivery is intended by the University to afford students 'as near as possible an identical experience to those students who study at Sunderland'. The University considers that this is achieved principally through the production and updating of learning materials by the University; by implementing programmes at the University to test out materials and delivery before rolling them out for off-campus delivery; by providing module handbooks for students and module guides for tutors; by control of assessments all of which are set, marked and moderated by staff at the University; by the approval of the local staff (see paragraph 41); and by ensuring that learning facilities are adequate and appropriate. The mode of operation of the course provides for students to attend at Londontec for the same number of hours as part-time students studying the same programme on campus.
30 The University requires external examiners to comment on comparability and believes that the monitoring process allows it to identify differences in performance between different delivery centres (see paragraphs 54, 57 and 58). Senior staff indicated that the University sought to achieve 'equality between different distance learning centres' and that it was unrealistic to seek to achieve the same experience as on campus students. Students whom the audit team met were satisfied that their experience was in line with their expectations of UK higher education level study.
31 From documentary evidence and meetings with staff and students, the audit team concluded that the quality assurance arrangements for the operation of the collaborative arrangement were in broad alignment with the Code of practice, and operating as intended.
Quality of student support
32 The Commentary stated that the University assured itself of the quality of the learning opportunities and student support provided by Londontec through the control of all learning materials, through student feedback, the annual monitoring cycle, visits to the centre by the external examiner and through the approval process for both the programmes delivered collaboratively and the partner organisation.
Liaison and administration
Day-to-day programme management
33 As noted above (paragraph 23), responsibility for ongoing monitoring of the provision is exercised by the University School of Computing and Technology mainly through the work of the Centre Leader who visits Londontec at least twice a year and works closely with the Centre Manager and the Student Counsellor. The Student Counsellor provides support to the Centre Manager in the management of the course and is often the first point of contact for students and for potential applicants. At the time of the audit, the Student Counsellor had only recently been appointed: the audit team would encourage the University to provide every assistance to her in developing her role as support to the Centre Manager. The Centre Leader, the University Programme Leader and the module leaders are established contacts for the local tutors who deliver the programme at Londontec. There is also a named administrator in the School who is the identified administrative contact for Londontec. The team found that the work of the Centre Leader and the administrative structure and support from CEDEC and the School provided an accessible, supportive and responsive management system for the partnership.
Management of selection and admissions
34 The Memorandum of Agreement states that Londontec has responsibility for recruitment to the programme subject to 'interviewing and final selection of students by the staff of the School of Computing, Engineering and Technology of the University'. In practice, as students are normally enrolled initially on the IADC, Londontec administers the recruitment and admissions to the programme. Students are interviewed and have to take a locally devised and administered English language written test. The tutors confirmed that they were involved in the interview process. Details of student applications are sent for final approval to the Centre Leader in his capacity as the admissions tutor for the IADC and level two of the BSc Computer Studies. On completion of their level 1 studies students wishing to proceed to level 2 submit an application and are registered with the University at that stage. The University's procedures also require it to be involved in approval of the acceptability for admission to level 2 of qualifications other than the Londontec IADC and in considering requests for exemptions from modules in the programme. The audit team was able to examine the student record system at Londontec which it considered to be comprehensive and fit for purpose.
Student data on progression and achievement
35 All assessment records are held in the UK as all marking, moderation and confirmation of results are undertaken at the University. Student progress is monitored at Programme Boards of Examiners and communicated to students through pass lists and transcripts. As students had only just proceeded to level 3, it was too early for the audit team to form a view on performance at that level, but the team noted examples of poor performance in one of the early level 3 modules which did not appear to have been discussed at the Board of Assessment. The University will wish to keep performance at level 3 under close and continuous monitoring, particularly in view of the change in approach to delivery and the implementation of the project element, and also to assure itself that students are receiving timely, individual, formative guidance on their performance.
Provision of information to and support for students
36 On registration, students receive a Programme Handbook, details of assessment and examination schedules and a module handbook for each module. The Programme Handbook, which is also available in a web-based format, is updated annually after review by the School Quality Sub-group. The audit team considered the handbooks to be comprehensive and accessible sources of information for students. The Student Counsellor and staff at Londontec provide the first line of contact for the BSc students. The Centre Leader visits Londontec to provide induction for each new intake.
Communication between awarding institution and students
37 Students are provided with contact details for the University staff associated with the programme and are able to contact module leaders through the Centre Leader by email. Students, whom the audit team met, confirmed that they met the Centre Leader and other staff from the University regularly and often, and considered that they enjoyed good channels of communication with the University.
Formal meetings with students, including meetings with staff of awarding institution
38 There is a student representative for each cohort and students were confident that the representatives could contact the University if there were any issues to be resolved. All students meet the local tutors on a weekly basis for lectures and tutorials but there is also a monthly meeting of tutors, the Student Counsellor, the Managing Director, and the students to discuss pastoral and academic matters. The Student Counsellor is also available for meetings with the students as necessary and minutes are kept of any such meetings held. The Centre Leader meets students in a group or individually on each visit that he makes to Londontec.
Information on entitlements or facilities available to students
39 There is a small library at Londontec which holds copies of all the essential books for the programme, some recommended texts and other information technology (IT) related books. Computers are provided, from which BSc students can access the internet free of charge. The University Information Services have developed a wide range of library and information services to support students studying on designated courses studied off-campus and students have on-line access to the University library. Students were appreciative of this facility and were aware that their use of the service was monitored by the University. Visiting University staff encourage students to use the service, reminding them of the benefits available from accessing the library on-line. The audit team considered the provision of electronic access to the University's library and to its Information Services to be an example of excellent practice worthy of wider note.
Complaints and appeals
40 There was no specific information about complaints and appeals procedures in the Programme Handbook although there was some reference to the procedures in the web-based material. Students are referred through the BSc Computer Studies Operations Manual which is held at Londontec to the undergraduate regulations which contain details of the procedures, or to the BSc Computer Studies CD. Information relating to complaints and appeals is also available on the CEDEC Operating Manual CD. The Centre Leader stated that he would expect students with difficulties to contact the Student Counsellor or to come to him initially. Students, whom the audit team met, were confident that the University would respond to complaints, citing an example of action taken in response to representations. While acknowledging that information on complaints and appeals was available, the audit team would encourage the University to give it greater prominence in the documentation provided to its students overseas.
Staffing and staff development
41 The local tutors are initially recruited by Londontec; the Memorandum of Agreement requires the appointment of tutors to be approved by the University School of Computing and Technology. Records of staff teaching on the programme are kept by the University. The curricula vitae (CVs) of the initial group of tutors were considered as part of the approval process and staff were interviewed prior to appointment. For subsequent changes in staffing the CVs of all proposed tutors are sent to the University for consideration and the University reserves the right not to approve appointments or to give conditional approval pending an interview by a member of staff of the University. Tutors are interviewed by the Centre Leader at the visit subsequent to their appointment.
42 The tutors are considered by the University to be of 'equivalent calibre' to part-time visiting lecturers delivering the programme in the UK and their suitability for appointment is not determined solely by qualifications. In the rapidly changing IT subject environment, industrial experience is seen as a positive asset for tutors delivering the computer studies programme. The qualifications and experience of the tutors is taken into consideration in matching them to specific modules for delivery. The University was confident that the tutors currently in post had the experience to meet the demands of tutoring honours level work. The audit team had some reservations about the University's view that industrial experience compensated for lack of experience of delivery at honours level 3 and would encourage the University to use monitoring of student performance at level 3 to provide additional assurance of the match of staff experience to the demands of final-year honours work.
43 The University intends that following approval of the operation of the revised programmes at Londontec, delivery will be by PowerPoint presentation. The University has determined that a move from the existing video-based model will allow for more contextualisation of the material for local delivery; the PowerPoint model will provide the University's standard lecture material and local tutors will be able to 'add value' for the local market. The change from video-based delivery will only be implemented in overseas centres after the material has been subject to a full trial at the University, a cautious approach which the audit team supported. The use of PowerPoint for distance learning has already been piloted on three master's programmes within the School.
44 The intended transfer from video delivery to PowerPoint-based lectures by local staff is a major change and represents an increase in demand on those staff. The University recognises the implications of the change in delivery mode for the role of the local tutors who will be redesignated as lecturers in line with the more interactive role that they will be required to undertake. Staff at Londontec, whom the audit team met, indicated that there would be obvious advantages to delivering the material by PowerPoint presentation which could be readily updated, in contrast to the videos which were less easy to modify. Although they had found the video-based materials to be well-ordered and coordinated, tutors confirmed that they had seen and welcomed the proposals for restructuring of delivery; they appreciated that they would be required to undertake staff development but were confident that their industrial experience would support them in adapting to the new mode of delivery.
45 Project supervision will be carried out by staff from the University. Some of the local tutors whom the audit team met acknowledged that supporting project work would be a new experience for them. At the time of the audit, the project had not yet operated at Londontec and the proposed approach to delivery was therefore unproven at that delivery site. The team formed the view that a great deal of preparatory work was necessary to support implementation of the project element of the programme. By way of example, it was not clear how and when the recently installed video conferencing link would be used for reviews and vivas in connection with the project, given the time difference between Sri Lanka and the UK and the fact that students studied at Londontec on Sundays when staff at the University might not normally be available. In this context, it was also not clear to the team how the face-to-face tutorials with University staff, referred to in the Handbook, would be delivered.
Communication between the awarding institution and staff teaching on the programme
46 Tutors can contact module leaders at the University by email copied to the Centre Leader to allow him to maintain an overview of the operation of the programme. At the end of each module the tutors produce a report for the University and had seen changes made as a result of their observations. Tutors meet the Centre Leader during his visits to discuss issues relevant to the course, for example plagiarism and teaching methods.
Staff development and support
47 The first group of tutors appointed were required to attend staff development sessions held by University staff at Londontec. The Centre Leader provides induction for new staff and has conducted peer review of the teaching of the tutors currently in post. Tutors also receive a noteworthy detailed Tutors' Guide to assist them in delivery of the programme. It appeared to the audit team that, after the initial briefing, staff development had been largely reactive, for example, training on how to increase student awareness of issues around plagiarism.
48 The University indicated that half a day of formal training would be provided to prepare tutors to deliver the programme using PowerPoint presentations in their new role as lecturers. Tutors whom the audit team met were enthusiastic about working with staff from the University, seeing it as an opportunity to enhance their own professional development; they also expressed a wish to be more involved in the assessment regime, including being able to propose questions for inclusion in the examination papers. The team formed the view that delivery facilitated by the tutors had been effective; the move to the next stage with regard to the project and the change to PowerPoint delivery will require a structured and ongoing programme of staff development and continued support for Londontec to encourage staff to fulfil the role of lecturer.
49 The audit team considered that the arrangements for managing the quality of learning opportunities, including staff and student support, liaison and communication were fit for purpose and in alignment with the relevant sections of the Code of practice.
Assurance of the standards of awards
50 In its Commentary the University stated that the standard of its award of BSc (Hons) Computer Studies at Londontec was assured by the in-house production of all teaching materials; the setting and marking of all assessments by University of Sunderland staff; the view the external examiner has of the programme; internal moderation processes; and the moderation of the Londontec IADC by which students enter the programme.
Assessment of students
51 The University is committed to applying 'the same high standards of practice associated with the 'home' programmes to the assessment of off-campus students'. In the BSc Computer Studies Handbook CEDEC identifies the additional challenges presented by off-campus delivery to the maintenance of assessment standards and defines the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved both overseas and at the University in the assessment process.
52 Each module leader is responsible for the conduct of the assessment of that module both on and off-campus. There are three assessment points per year for collaborative provision and the named school administrator for each centre liaises with the module leader to secure the timely production and despatch of assignments and examination papers. Examinations at Londontec are scheduled for Sundays: the audit team did not consider this to be a robust approach to synchronisation of assessment with the UK and other centres worldwide where examinations are not customarily conducted at weekends.
53 At Londontec, the Student Counsellor ensures that assessment exercises are distributed to students on or before a specified handout date and is responsible for making appropriate arrangements for the submission of assessments and the return of assessed work to the students. The Centre Manager receives examination papers and is responsible for the conduct of the examinations and submission of scripts to the University. Arrangements for the administration of the examination process are sound and include retention of attendance lists and seating plans; the tutors act as invigilators. The University was able in most cases to return assessed work to the Student Counsellor for distribution to the students within the specified timescale of four weeks. Students whom the audit team met commented favourably on the feedback that they received but commented on recent delays in the notification of examination results, attributed to the Christmas vacation period, which was borne out by documentation seen by the team, including the first annual report from Londontec.
54 Visiting lecturers at the University carry out the marking for each module which is then moderated by the module leader. The Programme Leader and designated School administrator are responsible for presenting grades to the appropriate Programme Assessment Board for consideration and decision. Centre Leaders are able to attend Assessment Boards to present centre related circumstances that may affect assessment. The performance of individual centres is closely monitored, and where appropriate, the Chair of the Assessment Board can request that the performance of a particular cohort of students or the level of attainment on individual modules be investigated and reported on to the Programme Board of Studies.
55 The Commentary highlighted plagiarism as 'the one major issue the University has had to face' in the operation of the partnership. Although the Centre Leader had met the students to explain the issue, the University detected considerable plagiarism in the first assignment submitted. The Centre Leader visited Londontec again and interviewed the students individually to emphasise the seriousness of academic dishonesty. The University handled the cases of plagiarism through its standard procedures. In the face of a more limited but continuing problem in this area, the University intends to conduct seminars to improve student and staff awareness.
56 Staff in the School of Computing and Technology indicated that they intended to have further debate on the late submission rule for assessment exercises. The rule currently states that 'late submission or non submission without a valid reason' will incur a zero grade. The rule had been introduced to ensure uniformity of approach and although a Centre Leader could reschedule assessment deadlines to take account of local circumstances, some University staff whom the audit team met expressed reservations about the fairness of the rule.
External examiners
57 An external examiner has been appointed specifically to oversee the quality and standards of off-campus provision for the BSc (Hons) Computer Studies programmes. The external examiner attends the Assessment Board for the cognate UK provision to support comparison of standards at the different delivery centres. A programme of visits by the external examiner to all centres is under way which the audit team considers to be good practice in ensuring that the examiner is aware of local contexts and is familiar with the arrangements for delivery of the provision. The external examiner has visited Londontec and submitted a report to the University following the visit. The audit team considered that the preparation given to the external examiner had been thorough and beneficial and reinforced the securing of standards in this growing area of activity for the University.
58 External examiner reports are considered at the relevant Programme Board of Studies which monitors action plans arising from external examiner reports. The Programme Leader is required to produce a draft response to the external examiner's comments and the Associate Dean of School is responsible for responding formally to the examiners on matters raised in the reports. All external examiner reports are read by the Deputy Vice Chancellor and a central overview report is produced.
59 The audit team had access to all the current external examiners' reports for the off-campus collaborative provision for the BSc (Hons) Computer Studies including the one report so far covering the consideration of the students at Londontec. The external examiner noted that 'the complete control over the assessments by the University guarantee[d] the standards [were] comparable to those achieved elsewhere on similar courses'.
60 From documentary evidence and meetings with staff and students, the audit team formed the view that the assessment process was secure. Overall, the team found that administrative arrangements for assessment were clear and well understood by staff and students at Londontec. The team considered that the University's overall approach to the management of academic standards in the collaborative arrangement with Londontec was in alignment with the relevant sections of the Code of practice.
Summary and conclusions
61 The subject of the audit was an arrangement between the University of Sunderland (the University) and the Londontec International Computer School (Londontec) for the delivery of levels 2 and 3 of the University's BSc (Hons) Computer Studies degree. There is a supporting articulation agreement which recognises the Londontec International Academic Computing Diploma as a qualification for direct entry to level 2 of the degree programme. The programme is based on the undergraduate course taught at the University and the use of video-based study materials is intended to provide the students at Londontec with 'as near as possible an identical experience to those who study in Sunderland'. Students study part-time, attending at weekends as most are in full-time employment. This is the only degree-level programme offered at Londontec and its operation is being closely monitored and supported by the University. At the time of the audit, the first cohort which commenced level 2 in January 2002 had still to complete the degree programme.
62 The Commentary prepared for the purposes of the audit provided a clear overview of the link with Londontec and an appropriate degree of detail about the management of this particular model of overseas collaborative provision of tutor supported delivery using University learning materials. The University considers the collaboration with Londontec to be a standard model which is also in operation in Botswana, Kenya, Malaysia, Greece and Syria as well as several centres throughout the UK. The Commentary identified a caring style of support, close interaction and good communications as central features of the University's approach to off-campus students and partner organisations. The findings of the audit confirmed that the Commentary provided an accurate depiction of the operation of the programme at Londontec.
63 The audit team found that the model of tutor supported delivery clearly represented an effective framework for the collaboration. The work of the Computing and Engineering Distance Education Centre, based in the School of Computing and Technology, and of the Centre Leader and the range of well-documented policies and procedures, in particular the BSc Computer Studies Student and Tutor Handbooks and comprehensive Module Handbooks, provide an accessible and responsive management system and facilitate communications between the University and its partner.
64 The University has recently reviewed the BSc Computer Studies programme. A new version of the programme will be delivered in the UK and new learning materials for delivery through PowerPoint presentations will be developed before the revised programme is delivered with the collaborative partner, a cautious approach which is supported by the audit team. The team noted with interest the intended global expansion of this model of delivery and the University's awareness of the resource implications associated with the sustainability of the operation with further expansion.
65 The programme is delivered by tutors most of whom are currently based in industry; they are provided with comprehensive learning materials and guidance on the use and delivery of the distance-learning package. The video presentations help the tutors to have a greater understanding of the programme. As it continues to develop its partnership with Londontec the University may wish to take steps to ensure that appropriate staff development activities are provided for the staff in addition to those planned in connection with the change from video-based delivery to PowerPoint presentations. The tutors' change of role to lecturer offers the University the opportunity to review the potential for additional input from the lecturers to formative assessment, remediation and student guidance which would further enhance the provision.
66 Effective monitoring and guidance by the University assisted the partner in establishing the programme. There is a good relationship between staff and students at Londontec and the University, and access to staff at the University is available within defined procedures to maintain an overview by the Centre Leader of the operation of the programme. On-line access to the University Library and Information Services for students is a particularly noteworthy feature to be further encouraged by the University and Londontec staff.
67 The University retains control over the assessment process and all setting, marking and moderation of assessments is undertaken by University staff. The same external examiner is responsible for all the BSc Computer Studies provision delivered off campus and attends the assessment boards for the cognate UK provision to support appraisal of comparability of standards. The external examiner visits all the delivery centres which is good practice in providing an appreciation of local contexts. Examinations at Londontec are scheduled for Sundays: the audit team did not consider this to be a robust approach to synchronisation of assessment with the UK and other centres worldwide where examinations are not customarily conducted at weekends.
68 Since the University established this partnership, it has strengthened its central oversight of collaborative provision which has led to a more rigorous approach to the classification of models of collaboration. The current documented procedures take due account of the section of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by QAA, on collaborative provision. The University recognises the need to review the Memorandum of Agreement for the partnership which is not in alignment with the Code of practice: the audit team would encourage the University to revise the Agreement at the earliest possible opportunity in its own interests and those of its students at Londontec.
69 The audit found evidence that the University's practice in respect of its collaborative provision was in broad alignment with the Code of practice, and that the University had taken account of the recommendations of previous audits by QAA and had modified its procedures accordingly. Although the collaboration has yet to produce its first graduands, the findings of the audit suggest that the University's confidence in the effectiveness of its procedures to assure the standards of the awards to be achieved is justified and support a judgement of confidence in the University's stewardship of academic standards and the quality of the student experience in its overseas collaborative provision.
Appendix A
Commentary on the overseas quality audit report supplied by the University of Sunderland
The University welcomes the report and would like to thank the audit team for its efforts. The University of Sunderland has a national reputation for widening access to higher education and as part of this continuing aim has, through the Computing and Engineering Distance Education Centre (CEDEC), developed a procedure for operating Sunderland computing and engineering programmes globally in collaboration with local partners. Londontec being one such partner organization, located in Sri Lanka. CEDEC's aim has always been to provide distant students with the same standard of education as received by students attending on-campus. Londontec is the second CEDEC centre to be inspected by QAA and we are pleased that the report confirms QAA's confidence in the university's stewardship of academic standards and the quality of the student experience in its overseas collaborative provision. The report indicated two points of concern. One being that the Memorandum of Agreement, signed before the QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision was published, is not in alignment with that code. This is being corrected in the current round of Memorandum of Agreement renewals. The second point referred to the timing of examinations in Sri Lanka, which currently take place at weekends. This will be reviewed to determine whether it poses a substantive risk to the security of the examinations. However, our experience to date leads us to have confidence in the security of these assessment procedures. The review will ensure that academic standards are maintained and that all students receive fair treatment.
Appendix B
Student numbers 2004-05
Cohort 1 - 15 students
Cohort 2 - 12 students
ISBN 1 84482 248 6
RG 120 04/05
Top