University of Central Lancashire

MARCH 2006

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

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

The purpose of collaborative provision audit

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

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

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

Judgements

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

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

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

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

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

Nationally agreed standards

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

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

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

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

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

The audit process

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

The main elements of collaborative provision audit are:

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

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

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

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

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

the audit visit, which lasts five days

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

The evidence for the audit

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

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

reviewing the written submission from students

asking questions of relevant staff from the institution and from partners

talking to students from partner institutions about their experiences

exploring how the institution uses the Academic Infrastructure.

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

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

© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2006

ISBN 1 84482 565 5

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

Printed copies are available from:Linney DirectAdamswayMansfieldNG18 4FN

Tel 01623 450788Fax 01623 450629Email qaa@linneydirect.com

Registered charity number 1062746

Summary 1

Introduction 1

Outcome of the collaborative provision audit 1

Features of good practice 1

Recommendations for action 1

National reference points 2

Main report 4

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

Background information 5

The collaborative provision audit process 6

Developments since the institutional audit of the awarding institution 6

Section 2: The collaborative provisionaudit investigations: the awardinginstitution's processes for qualitymanagement in collaborative provision 7

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision 7

The awarding institution's frameworkfor managing the quality of the students' experience and academicstandards in collaborative provision 9

The awarding institution's intentions for enhancing the management of itscollaborative provision 12

The awarding institution's internal approval, monitoring and reviewarrangements for collaborative provision leading to its awards 13

External participation in internal reviewprocesses for collaborative provision 17

External examiners and their reports in collaborative provision 17

The use made of external reference points in collaborative provision 19

Review and accreditation by externalagencies of programmes leading to theawarding institution's awards offered through collaborative provision 20

Student representation in collaborativeprovision 21

Feedback from students, graduates andemployers 22

Student admission, progression, completion and assessment informationfor collaborative provision 23

Assurance of the quality of teaching staff in collaborative provision; appointment,appraisal, support and development 24

Learning support resources for students in collaborative provision 25

Academic guidance and personal support for students in collaborativeprovision 26

Section 3: The collaborative provisionaudit investigations: publishedinformation 27

The experience of students in collaborative provision of the publishedinformation available to them 27

Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information on collaborative provision leading to theawarding institution's awards 27

Findings 29

The effectiveness of the implementation of the awarding institution's approach to managing its collaborative provision 29

The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for assuring thequality of educational provision in itscollaborative provision 30

The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for safeguarding the standards of its awards gained through collaborative provision 31

Contents

The awarding institution's use of theAcademic Infrastructure in the context of its collaborative provision 32

The utility of the collaborative provision self-evaluation document as an illustration of the awarding institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations in collaborative provision, and to act on these to enhance quality andsafeguard academic standards 32

Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of its management ofquality and academic standards in itscollaborative provision 32

Reliability of information provided by theawarding institution on its collaborativeprovision 33

Features of good practice in the management of quality and academicstandards in collaborative provision 33

Recommendations for action by the awarding institution 33

Appendix 34

The University of Central Lancashire's response to the collaborative provision audit report 34

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) visited theUniversity of Central Lancashire (the Universityor UCLAN) from 27 to 31 March 2006 to carryout an audit of the collaborative provisionoffered by the University. The purpose of theaudit was to provide public information on thequality of the programmes of study offered by the University through arrangements withcollaborative partners, and on the discharge of the University's responsibility as an awardingbody in assuring the academic standard of itsawards made through collaborativearrangements.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoketo members of staff of the University, and reada wide range of documents relating to the waythe University manages the academic aspects ofits collaborative provision. As part of the auditprocess, the team met with four of theUniversity's collaborative partners where it spoke to students on the University'scollaborative programmes and to members of staff of the partner institution.

The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that astudent has to reach to gain an award (forexample, a degree). It should be at a similarlevel across the UK.

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

The term 'collaborative provision' is taken to mean'educational provision leading to an award, or tospecific credit toward an award, of an awardinginstitution delivered and/or supported and/orassessed through an arrangement with a partnerorganisation' (Code of practice for the assurance ofacademic quality and standards in higher education,Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible anddistributed learning (including e-learning), 2004,

paragraph 13, published by QAA).

In an audit of collaborative provision bothacademic standards and academic quality are reviewed.

Outcome of the collaborativeprovision audit

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

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

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

Features of good practice

The audit team identified the following areas asbeing good practice:

the manner in which the PartnershipForum operates both as an integrativemechanism for relationships between thepartners and the University, and amongstthe partners themselves

the contribution made by the Universityand its regional partners to opportunitiesfor wider participation in higher educationwithin the region

the process for ensuring comparability ofstandards across networked provision

the variety of small scale funding initiativesavailable to staff in partner colleges.

Recommendations for action

The audit team also recommends that theUniversity should consider further action in anumber of areas to ensure that the academicquality of programmes and standards of theawards it offers through collaborativearrangements are maintained. The team

Collaborative provision audit: summary

page 1

considers it advisable that the University:

ensures that it exercises in full itsresponsibilities under the terms of itsagreement with its accredited partner in order to ensure that its processes formonitoring quality and standards are clear and effective

and considers it desirable that the University:

makes more explicit and transparent in its documentation the way in whichrecommendations arising from validationand periodic review are considered

seeks ways to improve the response ratefrom students in partner colleges to thestudent satisfaction survey and to putinto practice its intention to extend thissurvey to students on UCLan awards atoverseas partners.

National reference points

To provide further evidence to support itsfindings, the audit team also investigated theuse made by the University of the AcademicInfrastructure which QAA has developed onbehalf of the whole of UK higher education.The Academic Infrastructure is a set ofnationally agreed reference points that help to define both good practice and academicstandards. The audit found that the Universitywas making effective use of the AcademicInfrastructure in the context of its collaborativeprovision. In due course, the audit process will include a check on the reliability of theTeaching Quality Information (TQI) publishedby institutions in the format recommended in the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland's document 03/51, Information onquality and standards in higher education: Finalguidance. The audit team was satisfied that theinformation the University and its partners arepublishing currently about the quality of itscollaborative programmes and the standards ofits awards is reliable, and that the University ismaking adequate progress to providing TQIdata for its collaborative provision.

University of Central Lancashire

page 2

Main report

Main report1 An audit of the collaborative provision (CP)offered by the University of Central Lancashire(UCLan, the University) was undertaken duringthe period 27 to 31 March 2006. The purposeof the audit was to provide public informationon the quality of the programmes of studyoffered by the University through arrangementswith collaborative partners, and on thedischarge of the University's responsibility as an awarding body in assuring the academicstandard of its awards made throughcollaborative arrangements.

2 CP audit supplements the institutionalaudit of the University's own provision. Theprocess of CP audit has been developed by theQuality Assurance Agency for Higher Education(QAA) in partnership with higher educationinstitutions (HEIs) in England. It provides ameans for scrutinising the collaborativeprovision of an HEI with degree-awardingpowers (awarding institution) where the CPwas too large or complex to have beenincluded in the institutional audit of theawarding institution. The term 'collaborativeprovision' is taken to mean 'educationalprovision leading to an award, or to specificcredit toward an award, of an awardinginstitution delivered and/or supported and/orassessed through an arrangement with apartner organisation' (Code of practice for theassurance of academic quality and standards inhigher education (Code of practice), Section 2:Collaborative provision and flexible anddistributed learning (including e-learning), 2004, paragraph 13, published by QAA).

3 The CP audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishingand maintaining the standards of academicawards through collaborative arrangements;for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study offered throughcollaborative arrangements that lead to thoseawards; for publishing reliable informationabout its CP; and for the discharge of itsresponsibility as an awarding body. As part of the collaborative audit process, the audit team visited four of the University's collaborative partners.

Section 1: Introduction: theinstitution and its mission as itrelates to collaborative provision4 Receiving university status in 1992 theULCan can trace its origins back to 1828. Since 1992 the University has incorporated theLancashire College of Midwifery, the LancashireCollege of Nursing and Newton Rigg Collegeinto its activities. It has three campuses located in Preston, Carlisle and Penrith, and operatesthrough the Faculties of Cultural, Legal and Social Studies, Design and Technology, Health,Lancashire Business School, and Science. Facultieshave a major role in the management of CP.

5 The University currently has over 36,000gross student numbers. One of the distinguishingfeatures of the University is its large provision for part-time students which represent around 38 per cent of the student population. Themajority of the provision includes taughtundergraduate and postgraduate programmes.The University has a long history of providingwider participation learning opportunities forregionally based students and for routes of studyfrom further to higher education. It sees itspartnership with its regional college partners as a major means to widen participation to studentsand communities which might otherwise beisolated from higher education because ofcultural, social, economic and geographicinequalities. The wider participation ethos alsoapplies to students based overseas.

6 CP represents approximately 22 per centof the student population, spread across theUniversity as follows:

Cultural, Legal and Social Studies 2,265

Design and Technology 2,329

Health 231

Lancashire Business School 1,086

Science 1,066

Institutional Level 926

Total 7,903

University of Central Lancashire

page 4

7 The type of programme being pursued by CP students is as follows:

UK based undergraduate 4,686

UK based postgraduate (including 464 Certificate in Education students) 536

Overseas undergraduate 2,637

Overseas postgraduate 44

Total 7,903

8 The University has grown its CP taughtprovision over the last 20 years to include 37 UK partners and 21 international collegesoperating in 11 different countries. Themajority of overseas partners are based in thePeople's Republic of China (including HongKong) reflecting the University's priority area for overseas CP developments.

9 Fire Safety Engineering courses and awardsrepresent a niche market for the University bothnationally and overseas. Regionally, the Universityis in partnership with over 20 colleges for theprovision of taught courses, most of whichprovide routes to other University awards. Aparticular feature of the CP is that the majority of provision satisfies the prerequisites for final year undergraduate study, enabling students totransfer to the University to complete their studies.

10 The University mission statement…'wepromote access to excellence enabling you (the potential student) to develop yourpotential'…indicates the key motivation behindits CP. The access agenda is a significant part inthe philosophy of the University and is, in part,addressed by providing courses of study throughCP which give students access to further study atthe University. The mission statement goes on toprovide four elements of practice:

'We value and practise equality ofopportunity, transparency and tolerance.

We strive for excellence in all we do: locallyregionally, nationally and internationally.

We work in partnership with business, the community and other educators.

We encourage and promote researchinnovation and creativity'.

11 The audit team heard that the aboveelements are part of the wider vision for theUniversity looking beyond its physical boundariesto provide opportunities for a broader studentpopulation. This wider participation agendaprovided a context within which the academicstandards and quality of the provision could beconsidered by the audit team.

Background information

12 The published information available forthis audit included the following recentdocuments:

the report of the institutional auditconducted by QAA, April 2004

University of Central Lancashire andShenzhen University Overseas Partnershipaudit report, November 2001

University of Central Lancashire and the Fire Safety Engineering College, Oman,overseas quality audit report, May 2005

reports by QAA on subject-related reviewsundertaken in various partner institutionsof the University.

The University provided QAA with a series of documents and information including:

an institutional CP self-evaluationdocument (CPSED) with appendices,dated October 2005

the University Academic Quality Assurance Handbook 2005-06

access to the University intranet

documentation relating to the partnerinstitutions visited by the audit team.

13 During the briefing and audit visits, theaudit team was given ready access to a rangeof the University's internal documents. Theteam identified a number of partnershiparrangements that illustrated further aspects of the University's provision, and additionaldocumentation was provided for the teamduring the audit visit. The team was grateful for the prompt and helpful responses to itsrequests for information.

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 5

The collaborative provision auditprocess

14 Following a preliminary meeting at theUniversity in June 2005 between a QAA officer and representatives of the University,QAA confirmed in November 2005 that four partner visits would be conductedbetween the briefing and audit visits. TheUniversity provided its CPSED in October2005. The University provided QAA withspecific supplementary information relating to each of the partners being visited inJanuary 2006.

15 The students of the University wereinvited, through the University Students' Union(UCLanSU), to contribute to the CP auditprocess in a way that reflected the currentcapacity of the Union to reflect the views ofstudents studying for UCLan awards throughcollaborative partners. Officers from UCLanSUcontributed to the development of the CPSEDand also submitted a student writtensubmission (SWS). The audit team was able to meet representatives of UCLanSU and ofstudents from partner Institutions at thebriefing visit. The team is grateful to the officersof UCLanSU and other students for theirengagement with the process.

16 The audit team visited the University from23 to 25 January 2006 for the purposes ofexploring with senior members of staff of theUniversity, senior representatives from partnerinstitutions (PIs), and student representativesfrom UCLanSU and PIs, matters relating to the management of quality and academicstandards in CP raised by the University'sCPSED and other documentation, and ofensuring that the team had a clear understandingof the University's approach to collaborativearrangements. At the close of the briefing visit,a programme of meetings for the audit wasagreed with the University. Additionally, it wasalso agreed that certain document audit trailswould be followed exploring various aspects of collaborative provision, in a range ofdifferent academic relationships.

17 During visits to PIs, members of the team met senior staff, teaching staff andstudent representatives of the PIs. The team is grateful to the staff of the PIs for their help in gaining an understanding of the University's arrangements for managing itscollaborative arrangements.

18 The audit visit took place from 27 to 31March 2006, and included further meetingswith staff from partners and from UCLan andwith students of the University. The meetingsexplored a wide range of matters, drawingupon expertise in managing links with PIs,operating international partnerships,institutional and course approval, monitoringprocesses and student records and data. Theaudit team is grateful to all those staff andstudents who participated in meetings.

19 The audit team comprised Professor MBroadbent, Mrs C Pickles, Professor G Taylorand Professor J Yip. The audit secretary was Mr I Pearson. The audit was coordinated forQAA by Professor I M Robinson, AssistantDirector, Reviews Group.

Developments since the institutionalaudit of the awarding institution

20 UCLan's previous institutional audit took place in April 2004. While none of thefeatures of good practice or recommendationsfor action relating to the 2004 audit refersdirectly to CP, some have an implicit bearingand are addressed later in this report (seeparagraph 81). The 2004 report identifies anumber of points of good practice. Theseincluded the comprehensive CourseDevelopers Guide that has had a positiveimpact on the development of consistentpractice; the categorisation of actions arisingfrom external examiners' reports; and thepattern of support provided to studentsbefore and during induction to enhance theirearly experience of university life and improveretention. The report identified a number ofpoints for further consideration. Of particularnote to this audit they included:

University of Central Lancashire

page 6

make more explicit and transparent indocumentation the actions arising fromreview processes, the response to themand the progress being made.

21 The University's provision at the FireSafety Engineering College in Oman wasincluded in the QAA overseas collaborativeaudit of the Gulf States in spring 2005.Amongst the 10 positive features identified in the report were: the well-articulatedinternational policy and strategy; theeffectiveness of student involvement in thequality assurance of their programmes; thefacilitation of student progression from theCollege to the University. The report identifieda number of points for further consideration.These included:

the articulation of residual obligations tostudents in the case of termination of the partnership

promoting consistency andcomprehensiveness in annual reporting

stipulating minimum membership ofassessment boards.

The University's SED stated that the Universitywas currently acting upon these points, andthe team was able to confirm that this wasthe case.

22 The University continues to grow in linewith its regional and international strategy. It is in the process of approving newpartnership proposals with regional FEcolleges and it is also diversifying thegeographical location of its overseas partnersin China, Ukraine, Slovenia and theNetherlands; new relationships have beendeveloped in Hong Kong, the Sultanate ofOman, India and Greece.

Section 2: The collaborativeaudit investigations: theawarding institution's processesfor quality management incollaborative provision

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision

23 The University has developed criteria forpartnerships, both regional and international.Regionally, the HE-FE strategy makes clearcommitment to:

maximising the potential of collaborationbetween FE and HE for wider participationin higher education

contributing to the social and economicregeneration of the region (referring tothe North-West of England)

the institutional agreements between theUniversity and its regional FE collegepartners presents the objectives ofpartnerships as:

increasing the number and range of higher education opportunities in the North-West region (of the UK)

widening participation in HE provision in response to local need

developing materials and delivery modes which will support and enhance the student learning experience

maximising the expertise residing in the University and colleges for the benefit of the local economy.

24 In the audit team's meetings with membersof the University and their regional partners therewas a clear sense of shared purpose reflectingthese objectives, and a strong sense ofpartnership between the University and itspartners, and also between the partnersthemselves. The team heard of various examplesof close and productive working. The Universityand partners described how relationships haddeveloped over time to provide a coherent andeffective local FE-HE partnership (see paragraphs

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 7

35, 50) for the benefit of the community and to those individuals who wish to pursue aneducational pathway. Feedback to the team fromregionally based students was very positive aboutthe provision, although they indicated aspirationsof being able to complete their studies at theirown college, instead of travelling to UCLan.

25 The team considered the contributionmade by the University and its regional partnersto opportunities for wider participation in HEwithin the region to be good practice.

26 The University is in the process of revisingits international strategy, retaining at its corethe basic tenet of extending study opportunitiesto a broader student population who may notbe able to attend a University. It was explainedto the audit team that students based overseas,although academically qualified, may not, forvarious reasons, be able to pursue a universityeducation in their home country. TheUniversity's strategy enables such students to work towards a UK academic qualificationwithout having to incur the financial cost of attending for three years in the UK.Additionally, the University believes that UK qualifications are often perceived to be more vocationally relevant in the overseasmarket, and thus to be more career focused.

27 The International Activities Policy of theUniversity articulates its 'main international aimsas the recruitment of overseas students (eitherUK or home country based); the provision of an appropriate programme of staff and studentexchanges, placements and visits abroad; andparticipation in international research andconsulting'. To these ends the University has aclear aim of 'developing additional long termagreements with higher education institutionsin other countries to assist in the provision ofeducation and training facilities to thedeveloping countries and to those where localhigher education opportunities are limited'.Such overseas partnerships are primarilyfranchise in nature.

28 The University believes that its infrastructuremust reflect the growing nature of its CP. TheCPSED describes how this has been reflected in

the establishment of, over time, a PartnershipDevelopment Team (PDT), a Strategic PartnershipGroup, a Partnership Planning Advisory Group(PPAG), an International Collaboration Sub-Committee (ICSC) of the AcademicStandards Committee (ASC), a new InternationalOffice in 2004, an International Strategy Group(ISG), a Dean of International Affairs, anInternational Operations Group (IOG) and anexpansion of its regional offices based overseas.

29 The University describes its academicquality strategy as seeking to 'establish andassure appropriate standards for its awards andto enhance the student learning experience'. In pursuit of this objective the University hasformalised a range of arrangements by which it contracts with partner institutions. Thesearrangements fall into the following categories,the nomenclature of which is adoptedthroughout this report:

Validated Courses. Designed, deliveredand assessed by a PI, but awarded by the University and subject to the qualityassurance procedures of the University.

Joint Courses. In such courses theUniversity collaborates with other HEproviders to design and deliver a commoncourse which is validated by all theproviding institutions and which leads to a recognised award of all the collaboratinginstitutions. The nature and extent of thecollaboration may vary and may requirethe design of course specific academicregulations and quality assuranceprocedures which are approved by allproviders. Regulations which stand outside the general framework require the approval of the Academic Board.

Franchised Courses. These are approvedUniversity courses (stage of a course, orpart of a course), designed, delivered andassessed by the University, and are alsodelivered in, and by the staff of, anothereducational institution or other body,where such institutions/bodies are subjectto the quality assurance procedures ofthe University.

University of Central Lancashire

page 8

Networked course arrangements. The University collaborates with othereducational partners to design a commoncourse which is validated by the Universityand then formally franchised for deliveryto the partner institutions. The awards are

subject to the quality assurance proceduresof the University. These arrangements relatemainly to Foundation Degrees and theCertificate in Education/PostgraduateCertificate in Education provision.

30 The University manages relationships withits collaborative partners within a frameworkwhich recognises the maturity of thepartnership and the degree of engagementrequired. In partnerships with a limited numberof courses, the relationship might generally bemanaged through the specific course link. Inothers, an institutional level relationship mayalso be required. The University describes suchcategories of partnership as:

Accredited Institutions in which a partnerinstitution is given delegated authority by the University for the design, delivery,assessment and quality assurance ofcourses leading to University awardsoffered by the partner institution, whilstrecognising that the University retainsultimate responsibility for the quality andstandards of the awards. The specificterms of the agreement are set out in anAccreditation Agreement which is signedby both parties. The University currentlyhas only one such partnership.

Accreditation of in-house training orlearning. These aim to support andenhance an organisation's staffdevelopment activities and to improvebusiness performance. The University'sAccreditation process (currently underreview) has been developed to provide anemployer friendly and academically robustmodel for the accreditation of in-companytraining and learning activities. Onceaccredited, the work-based training orlearning provided for staff will qualify for a certificate of credit or credit equivalenceand may count towards an appropriateUniversity qualification.

Articulation Arrangements are a specificform of collaboration where the Universityagrees to recognise specified qualificationsoffered by a partner institution for entry,or advanced entry, to specified Universitycourses.

Joint Supervision of Research Degreeswhich involves the joint supervision ofresearch students associated with apartner institution. Students are registeredfor the award of higher degrees with theUniversity in accordance with theUniversity's higher degree regulations.

31 The audit team observed that itsaccredited institution has elements of delegatedauthority and is subject to a different series ofquality assurance mechanisms than other CParrangements. Arrangements are such that theaccredited institution is not affiliated to aparticular faculty or department within UCLan,and liaises directly with the Vice-Chancellor's(VC's) office.

32 The number and type of taught courseoffered by the University through collaborativepartners at the time of audit was as follows:

UK Overseas Total

Validated Courses 163 4 167

Joint Courses 1 1

Franchise Courses 216 44 260

Network Course Arrangements 13 13

Accredited Courses(in-house training or learning as defined above) 4 0 4

Totals 397 48 445

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

33 The University's quality strategy has fourmajor objectives:

to ensure the integrity of the academicawards of the University

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 9

to assure the academic standards of theUniversity's awards

to enhance the student experience in the context of the achievement of theUniversity's mission and its educationalobjectives

to enable and support staff in the deliveryof the highest quality provision.

34 In achieving these objectives the Universityseeks to:

utilise rigorous and effective qualitymechanisms that locate responsibility atan appropriate level within the University

review and further develop the University'sprocedures to ensure efficient andeffective processes, and

ensure the engagement of staff withquality improvement.

35 The CPSED refers to variations in themanagement of UK and international CP butindicates that all aspects of CP are subject to thesame strategy regarding quality and standardsregardless of their location. The responsibility foracademic standards and quality assurance (QA)has been delegated by the VC to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality/Standards and International)(PVC (QS&I)) with the executive responsibilityfor the UK CP residing with the Director ofAdvancement aided by the PDT and the PPAGand informed by the Partnership Forum (PF).The PF is an extensive grouping of UK-basedpartners and University representatives whichinforms University strategy and procedures. The forum is particularly active, chaired by a CP representative, and reflects good practice by drawing together all partner colleges and the University into a single purpose. Theresponsibility for the International Office and foracademic standards and QA for international CPhas been retained directly by the PVC (QS&I).The Dean of International Affairs chairs the IOGwith routine decisions exercised by the Head ofInternational Operations.

36 The Academic Board (AB) and itssubcommittees provides University-leveloversight. The Academic Standards Committee

(ASC) delegates responsibility for validation andperiodic review of CP to the Academic Qualityand Standards Unit (AQaSU) working throughthe UK and Overseas Partnership UniversityReview Panel. Committee oversight of thequality and standards of CP is exercised mainlythrough the consideration of action plansfollowing annual and periodic review,preparatory work for validation and morerecently, the formal process of partner approval.

37 Once validated, the responsibility for themanagement of CP is shared between thefaculties, departments, the partner college and,either the Partnership Development Office orthe International Office. The CPSED explainsthat quality assurance and managementresponsibility resides as near as possible to thestudent experience, with monitoring at thenext level and overall scrutiny at University level(see paragraph 73).

38 The audit team considered that proceduresfor academic standards and QA are welldocumented. The Academic Quality Assurancehandbook (Quality handbook) is updated eachyear and provides a comprehensive set ofprocedures, guidelines and templates governingthe approval and review of CP. Assessmentprocedures are detailed in the University'sAcademic Regulations. Additionally, theUniversity produces a 'Collaborative ProvisionQA chart' which provides an overview ofpartners' and University host departments'responsibilities for QA. The team also heard ofmore detailed guidance regarding QA processesat faculty level.

39 The key document governing therelationship between the University and itscollaborative partners is the Memorandum ofCo-operation (MOC). It defines the key aspectsof the contractual relationship and details thevarious QA duties and responsibilities within thepartnership. The MOC is issued and signed byboth partners after the completion of thecourse validation process; its revision is linkedto the cycle of course review except whereinterim revisions are considered necessary. In itsscrutiny of papers, the audit team observed oneinstance where course provision had shifted

University of Central Lancashire

page 10

from a tripartite to a bilateral relationship (see paragraph 70), and an MOC issued andapproved by both parties but without a formalrevalidation event.

40 UCLan believes that devolution of QAmatters to partners is an essential feature of CP,and that the key management link is betweenthe partner college course coordinator(s) andthe UCLan department course leader, althoughthe relationship is often aided by the presenceof an HE Co-ordinator in the partner. Forinternational partners the University specifies a minimum of at least three visits per year bythe course leader.

41 The audit team found that course leaders'visits to partners are often supplemented byvisits from heads of department, deans of facultyand members of the Directorate. They also heardthat during overseas partner visits staff may meetstudents, observe teaching, provide guestlecturers, run staff development workshops onassessment practice and in the development andinterpretation of the curriculum. The team readthat support is offered to international partnersby an existing and expanding network ofregional offices located strategically throughoutthe world. In addition, the IOG considersoperational issues and provides a forum forUCLan course leaders for international provisionto share good practice.

42 In its CPSED, the University stated that itsAdmissions Policy and Code of Practice appliesto all courses wherever they are taught. TheUCLan head of admissions retains responsibilityfor the oversight of delegated arrangements inPIs and for ensuring that the University's legalrequirements in relation to admission are met.The University monitors the outcome of itsadmissions policy, and the associated datarelated to progression and achievement. In itsdiscussions with staff and students at PIs, theaudit team formed the opinion that the entrystandards set at validation are being maintainedat partner colleges. The team were also able to observe the care that was taken in ensuringappropriate mapping was carried out to informprogression and entry decisions both to andfrom partner courses.

43 The CPSED stated that the 'key conceptfor the University in respect of the collaborativeprovision is that students at PIs have anequivalent experience to that of students at oneof the University's campuses'. The audit teamread that equivalence of student experience isensured by consideration of, for example, thequalifications of teaching staff, the learningresources available and the manner in whichmodules are managed by UCLan departmentswithin joint, franchised and network courseprovision. It heard that outcomes are assuredthrough moderation of assessment tasks andstudent submissions; the use of commonexternal examiners; standard learningoutcomes; and a standard credit, grading and award framework.

44 The student experience is monitoredthrough the Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs)produced for each collaborative course. Allcollaborative courses are required to haveprocesses for student representation andfeedback, typically via staff student liaisonpanels. At module level student questionnairesare used to elicit feedback.

45 Through its meetings and reading, the audit team was able to confirm that theUniversity's expectations of 'equivalent studentexperience' were clearly understood. Coursecommittees or their equivalent were establishedand appeared to be functional, and workingparticularly well within the regional colleges.AMRs evidenced student feedback andappropriate follow-up actions. The team spoketo students on a range of collaborative coursesand found that, in general, they were satisfiedwith their learning experience.

46 Within the course of the audit it wasestablished that in franchised provision,modules are the same as those offered by theUniversity and that network courses share thesame modules. Shared modules are managedby a course team which includes Universitystaff, and thus equivalence of provision isassured. The audit team considered, on thebasis of their reading and discussions, this to be so.

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 11

47 Module assessments are initiallyconsidered by Module Boards; consideration of progression and awards by Award Boards.Boards, chaired by senior UCLan staff, arepreceded by a rigorous process of moderationby course teams and oversight by externalexaminers. For courses offered within itsaccredited institution, students' performance is considered internally both at Module andAward Boards. The Accreditation Agreementprovides for UCLan to assure standards with aUniversity representative present at the AwardBoard. The audit team heard and read that thishas not always been the case.

48 Overall, the audit team formed the opinionthat the University's framework and processes for the management of QA and the studentexperience are well founded and effective. Thedevolution of QA to departments and facultieswith central oversight, operating through welldocumented procedures is robust. The processby which course, departmental and faculty issueswere aggregated for consideration was seen to be working well with remedial action beingtaken at the appropriate level. The oversight of partner institutions exercised through thePartnership Office and the International Officewas considered appropriate and effective.

49 The management of quality and standardsrelating to its accredited partner was consideredby the audit team to be less rigorous than forother CP provision. The University stated that inmany ways it considered its accredited partner asan additional faculty. The Universityacknowledged that monitoring reports shouldtherefore be considered in committee along withthose of the faculties; for 2004 and 2005 thishad not been possible, but committee cycleshave been revised to enable this to happen infuture (see also paragraphs 52 and 81).

50 The audit team considered the manner inwhich the PF operates both as an integrativemechanism for the relationship between thepartners and the University, and amongst thepartners themselves to represent good practice.Additionally, the team considered the manner inwhich that partnership provided opportunitiesfor wider participation also to be good practice.

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

51 In the CPSED the University signalled anumber of past and future developments for the enhancement of its processes for managingits CP. They include:

developing the recently establishedPartnership Planning Advisory Group

bringing together all partner colleges firmlywithin institutional arrangements andsupport mechanisms

reviewing the accreditation of in-housetraining following the restructuring of the Knowledge Transfer Service

conducting a review of the InternationalOffice

establishing an International Strategy Group

introducing an additional group, the International Operations Group.

52 During the audit, the audit team noted that the University had made significant progresswith its plans. The IOG, ISG and PPAG wereoperational and the reviews of the InternationalOffice and accreditation of in-house trainingschemes were well underway. The team alsonoted progress bringing all partners togetherwithin the same overarching framework. It noted,for example, that the University's intentions tobring together the timing of annual reports fromits accredited partner, to coincide with reportsfrom other CP, had recently been achieved.

53 The audit team was able to verify thevaluable role played by the PF in maintainingand developing links with partners, and notedthe intention of the PDT to improve thedissemination of the Forum's work internallywithin the University.

54 In its reading of the terms of reference andminutes of the ISG, the audit team found thatthe group, established by the PVC (QS&I),includes in its membership the deans of facultyand heads of key services connected withinternational development. It not only aims toimplement strategy but also to provide a forumfor cross-faculty initiatives.

University of Central Lancashire

page 12

55 The audit team was similarly able toreview the operation of the IOG. This group,chaired by the Dean of International Affairs,considers international operational issues andprovides a forum for University course leadersand other staff involved in internationalactivities to share good practice.

56 The audit team concluded that theUniversity's intentions for the enhancement of quality in its CP involving UK partnercolleges and international partners are generally appropriate within the context of its mission. In particular it noted that UKpartner colleges considered the PF to be avaluable enhancement to the management of this aspect of CP (see paragraph 50).

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

Partner approval57 The University has recently separated theapproval of a new collaborative partner and thesubsequent validation of courses. Procedures forthe approval for both regional and internationalpartners require a match of mission statementand a due diligence exercise, including bothfinancial and legal aspects.

58 For UK partnerships the PPAG prepares aportfolio of information regarding the potentialpartner prior to an approval panel visit. Approvalmay be granted after a formal written report ofthe visit has been considered by PPAG and theASaQA Committee. The visit may be waived bythe PVC (Academic) if the potential partner hasdistinguishing characteristics supporting approval,for example, existing recognition as a high qualityprovider of HE, or where the partner already hasdegree awarding powers in its own right.

59 Departments and faculties seekingapproval of international partners presentprescribed information about the potentialpartner to the ICSC for approval. The auditteam heard that the detail required is such that a department/faculty visit will invariably be required prior to its submission.

The information is similar to that required for UK institution approval. The strong initialappraisal process and the subsequent processesfor partner approval result in only a few soundproposals coming forward to approval.

60 Following approval of a new partner, an Institutional Agreement (IA) is formulated,and the new partner will be able to work withfaculties and departments to seek formalapproval for collaborative course provision.

61 In rare cases, the University will award a PI accredited status. In such cases the processof institutional approval is replaced by anaccreditation process. The University reviewsthe status of any accredited institution everyfive to seven years. The responsibilities of anaccredited institution are set out in theAccreditation Agreement. New courses offeredby an accredited institution are subject to thesame UCLan validation processes as other UKpartner institutions.

62 The partner approval process has yet tomature, but in discussions with PIs the auditteam heard that partners considered theprocess robust and welcomed its continualdevelopment.

Programme approval63 The process of collaborative coursevalidation, unlike campus-based provision, is not devolved to faculties, but is managedcentrally by AQaSU. Collaborative coursevalidations are conducted by representativesfrom the UK and Overseas PartnershipUniversity Review Panel. This panel consists of a pool of members drawn from within theUniversity and regional partner colleges.

64 Validation is a two stage process. Stage 1 is designed to aid course teams torefine proposals, check marketability and ensurecompliance with academic regulations. For UK validations the stage 1 is completed by the partner college with faculty staff forming a review panel. For international validations the event is conducted by the relevant facultyand held at the overseas location.

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 13

65 At stage 2 validation, representatives from the University Review Panel and externaladvisers form a panel which considers theproposal(s) against a set of University criteria,gathering evidence including rationale, courseaims and objectives, curriculum and learningresources. Outcomes range from approval, withor without conditions and recommendations, to refusal. Any conditions from the coursevalidation process must be completed prior tostudent enrolments to the course. The auditteam saw evidence of the way in whichresponsibility for these conditions wasconscientiously fulfilled. However, the teamcould not establish how the University reassureditself that recommendations from validationpanels were considered by the proposers.

66 In general the University will only validateprovision in disciplines where it has similarprovision on-campus. The audit team found a number of cases where well establishedpartners were widening provision to encompasssubject areas new to HE and where there wasno comparable provision at UCLan. The teamwas satisfied that the University took great care in such cases to ensure standards by theinvolvement of relevant PSRBs and subjectmatter experts in the development andvalidation processes.

67 The University has a small portfolio ofaccreditation agreements for in-house trainingand learning. The team found that theseprogrammes were considered within thestandard University validation processes.

68 Once courses are validated the Universityand partner will agree an MOC and anassociated financial annexe, both linked to the IA. Prior to formalisation of agreements for international partners, the University assuresitself of the legal and educational status of thepartner to offer the named courses in theirresident country. International (and exceptionallyUK-based) courses are subject to a formalinterim review by the University after the firstyear of operation.

69 The audit team heard and read that theUniversity believes its approval processes to berobust. Approval processes for courses in partnerinstitutions have recently been clarified and

consolidated to bring all partner institutionswithin a common institutional framework. TheUniversity has recently conducted an internalreview of its approval processes, confirming thatits validation and QA frameworks were strong.The willingness to engage in reflective reviewconfirmed the team's view that UCLan'sprocesses gave appropriate and soundopportunities for enhancement.

70 The audit team, through its visits topartners and by reading a number of coursevalidation reports, was able to confirm that theprocess of course approval was generally robustand fit for process. The team found examples offranchised and validated programme approvalswhich had been conducted entirely within theUniversity standard procedures. However, theteam also found an instance where a singlepartner was operating a franchise course notformally validated for that institution alone (see paragraph 39). The team heard and readof the particular circumstances which, in thebest interest of the enrolled students, had ledto this unusual situation and were reassured tohear that the course in question will be subjectto an early interim review.

71 In their scrutiny of UCLan's relationshipwith its accredited partner, the audit teamfound discrepancies between the PI's annualreport, the schedule for course validations, the courses being promoted in the prospectus,the approval status of those courses and theUniversity's register of collaborative provision.The team thus came to the conclusion that theUniversity's monitoring of course validationprocesses within its accredited partner wassubject to some doubt.

Monitoring72 The CPSED maintained that the annualmonitoring process provides an opportunity to consider how the quality of learning,teaching and assessment have impacted on theoperation of a course, to evaluate and improvecourse quality and to identify and disseminategood practice.

73 For UK collaborative provision the partnercollege course leaders prepare an AMR using a standard template which mirrors that for

University of Central Lancashire

page 14

in-house UCLan courses. The reports aresubmitted to the PDT which distributes them to the relevant UCLan Head of Department.The Head of Department aggregates the CPAMR(s) into the annual Department Report forfurther consideration in the annual FacultyReport. CP course, departmental and facultyannual reports are required to specify issues,actions and items of good practice in respect of the provision being monitored.

74 UK partners with a range of UCLanprovision are additionally required to prepare a College Evaluation Report which consolidatesdata and issues for all course and subjectreports operating within that partner. Thisreport must identify generic issues to beaddressed locally and those to be referred to the University.

75 In turn the PDT reviews all collaborativePartner College documentation (with theexception of its accredited partner) andprepares an AMR on Partnership Activity forASC. The University believes the production ofthis separate annual report on UK partnershipactivity is a valuable way for the University toreview its regional CP 'as a whole' and providesfurther evidence to partner colleges of theimportance and value of the AMR process.

76 AMR processes for its accreditedinstitution operate within the institution itself.A detailed report on the AMR outcomes issubmitted to the University and is read by theHead of AQaSU and the relevant PVC. TheUniversity formally considers the report atAcademic Standards Committee and a reply isdrafted by the PVC. The accredited institutionadopts the AMR template used by other UCLanUK based partners.

77 For international collaborative provisionUCLan-based course leaders prepare the AMRusing the standard University template. Thereports are collated by departments forconsolidating into the relevant Department andFaculty Annual Reports. Additionally, for CPoffering several UCLan courses, the InternationalOffice prepares an institution-specific summaryreport in addition to the full InternationalCollaborative Provision Report for ASC.

78 Annual monitoring draws on data from various sources. They include studentrepresentations, external examiner reports,progression and award data, module evaluationquestionnaires and course management issues.All AMRs are action based, with last year'saction plan being presented to evidenceprogress and a new action plan beingpresented for next year. The PF considers theprocess of annual reporting each year for itsconstituent members and considers the AnnualMonitoring of Partnership Activity Reportprepared by the University. In its recent reviewthe Forum noted the variable quality of theAMRs and asked the University for furtherguidance, and which the team noted hadsubsequently been provided.

79 The audit team noted the University'srecent review of the QA processes foraccredited work-based learning which will bring the QA processes for this provision within the annual monitoring and periodicreview framework, including the normalfeedback from external examiners.

80 Whilst the CPSED did not present aUniversity view of the effectiveness of its annualmonitoring procedures, the team noted that itsnormal processes have been enhanced for CPwith the introduction of summary reports forboth UK and international partnerships.

81 Through its meetings with partners andreading of documentation the audit team cameto the conclusion that the annual review processwas effective for franchised, validated and jointprogrammes. The partner reviews provide avaluable oversight of partner activities and theuse of common external examiners aidscomparability between modules and coursesoffered both in-house and by partner colleges.The annual review process for accreditedinstitution provision had been (see paragraph49) less visible in committee than for other CPactivities. The annual report had not previouslybeen submitted in time to be consideredalongside other CP. In their scrutiny of accreditedpartner reviews, the team noted somedeficiencies. Examples included AMRs with no progression statistics and missing external

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 15

examiners reports, little evaluative commentaryand report sections not fully completed. In thisregard the team considered reporting from theUniversity's accredited institution to be lesseffective for the University than from other CP.

Periodic course review82 Periodic course review is a centrallymanaged University process the main purposeof which is to review and revalidate the courseswithin a department or a partner institution ina five to six-year cycle. The process is managedby AQaSU and conducted by panels comprisingUniversity Review Panel members (seeparagraph 63), external advisers and others.The review panel will scrutinise relevantdocumentary evidence and meet staff andstudents. A report on the outcome is made tothe department, the faculty and to the Chair ofASC. For CP the objective of course reviewremains the same as for on-campus courses,but with added scrutiny of the operation andmanagement of the partnership link.

83 The CP periodic review process may varysomewhat in nature. It may consider courseswithin a particular partner representing a spreadof subject disciplines. Such a review panelincludes University and external advisers tomatch the spread of course expertise. In othercases periodic reviews may consider theprovision of a particular joint course delivered inseveral partner colleges, or a single programmeat a particular partner college. Institutionalperiodic review of a partner is within a periodiccourse review, but additionally requiring thereview panel to comment on institutional issuessuch as adequacy of resources.

84 The review panel report may makeconditions and recommendations about thecontinued delivery of the course(s) and inextreme cases recommend suspension. TheUniversity expresses confidence that the reviewprocess is in line with the Code of practice,published by QAA, in particular Section 7:Programme approval, monitoring and review, andthat consideration of elements of the AcademicInfrastructure are well embedded in theprocess. It also asserts that the recently revisedprocess of periodic review provides a clear focus

for course review, thus safeguarding theinterests of students.

85 In terms of arrangements for its accreditedinstitution, the CPSED explained thatmanagement and development of sucharrangements is laid out in the AccreditationAgreement and Implementation Statement. The audit team reviewed records from annualmeetings involving accredited partners,confirming that regular exchange took place. The University reviews accreditationarrangements every five to seven years. The accredited institution itself is required toundertake a periodic review of programmes ofstudy on a five to seven year basis, or less wheremajor changes and/or revisions are proposed.The review is operated in a similar manner tovalidation events.

86 In the view of the audit team, theUniversity's procedures for the periodic reviewof collaborative programmes were robust. Theteam saw evidence of conditions from reviewsbeing acted upon in a timely manner andformed the view that good use was generallymade of external assessors. (see paragraph 88)The team could not identify whereresponsibilities lay for following up onrecommendations from either validation orreview events (see paragraph 65). They did not appear in subsequent AMR action plans for consideration. The team considers that the University will consider it desirable to make more explicit and transparent in itsdocumentation the way in which suchrecommendations are considered.

87 The audit team formed the opinion thatthe processes of internal approval, monitoringand review to be well founded and providedeffective scrutiny of its franchise and validatedprovision. The team considered that theUniversity might wish to consider someimprovements to the processes in regard tomonitoring provision in its accredited partner.

University of Central Lancashire

page 16

External participation in internalreview processes for collaborativeprovision

88 The University requires that both validationand periodic review panel membership includesexternal advisers, and the current QualityHandbook states that there should be 'normallyat least two', one of whom must be anacademic, the other may be based in therelevant industry or profession. The audit teamheard that 'normally' meant that, in certaincircumstances, there might be more than two.It was also explained that it is not currentpractice to use external examiners in this role. It had been past practice to use externalexaminers, but procedures had been changedin order to bring the institution in line with the Code of practice.

89 In their reading of validation records, theaudit team noted that, in some cases, only oneexternal adviser had been involved; in others itwas not clear whether either external adviserhad an academic background. In discussion,the anomalies were acknowledged andexplained. The team also heard how theannual review of validation and reviewprocesses had identified the issue, resulting in an agreement to strengthen the writtenadvice provided to panel chairs and facultiesregarding the nomination of external advisers.The team noted these changes but, given the previous experience, believes that theUniversity will wish to continue to monitor the composition of validation panels to ensurethe appropriate level of externality.

90 Examples of periodic reviewdocumentation scrutinised by the teamdemonstrated the involvement of a wide rangeof external advisers covering the full spectrumof activity under consideration, and includingboth externals working in relevant industry andalso academics from a mix of HEIs. However,others, whilst involving a suitable range ofacademic expertise, appeared not to haveincluded industrial or professional expertisedespite the highly vocational nature of theprovision involved.

91 In addition to validated and franchisedcourses the University approves for credit a smallamount of accredited work-based, in-companyprovision (see paragraph 67). The approvalprocess for such provision specifies theinvolvement of an external adviser from an HEI,and UCLan has brought this type of work furtherinto line with other CP and now specifies theappointment of an external examiner in line withUniversity criteria.

92 The CPSED noted that 'the Universitygreatly values external input to its qualityassurance mechanisms - to give confidence in the rigour of its processes, to confirm theappropriateness of standards set and achieved,to confirm recognition of relevant subjectbenchmarks and to enhance quality…'. It is the view of the audit team that the currentUniversity Course Developer's Guidedemonstrates this commitment, and thatdespite some occasions where only limitedexternal input was employed, the currentguidelines are strong.

External examiners and their reportsin collaborative provision

93 The CPSED stated that '…the role andresponsibilities of external examiners are thesame for all provision, whether on-campus or collaborative…' and, indicated that in the case of a franchised course, the same external is responsible for that course at all its sites ofdelivery in order to ensure comparability ofstandards. For validated courses at PIs, theCollege HE Coordinator submits a nominationfor an appropriate external examiner in a timely manner to the head of the Universityhost department for agreement prior to beingforwarded for formal approval. PIs quotedexamples of nominations which had beenreturned, or subject to further discussion,demonstrating that the University gives dueweight to the appointment of its externalexaminers.

94 All proposals originating from theUniversity or one of its PIs are checked withinfaculties against the University's criteria forappointment and then forwarded to the

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 17

relevant Dean for formal approval. Approved nominations are passed to AQaSUwho notify ASC, update the database ofexternal examiners and send out a formalappointment letter on behalf of the University.Proposals from accredited institutions arepassed directly to AQaSU for formal approval.

95 All external examiners are appointed andpaid by UCLan and are invited to a Universitybriefing event prior to taking up theirappointment. Those unable to attend receivebriefing documentation which includes a clearlywritten and informative booklet setting outtheir roles and responsibilities. Accreditedinstitutions organise separate briefing events towhich they also invite their external examiners,at which they explain their own regulations.UCLan staff attend these events to representthe perspective of the University.

96 All external examiners are required tosubmit an annual report, in a standard formatto AQaSU. It is disseminated to PVC (QS&I),heads of department, deans, faculties and the relevant PI HE coordinators. Heads ofdepartment, advised by course leaders, arerequired to respond directly to externalexaminers, copying their response to AQaSU.They are also expected to comment on theexternal's report in their AMR. AQaSU hasresponsibility for following up late or missingreports and can recommend termination of the examiner's appointment to the chair of ASC if no report is received.

97 The external examiner report requirescomment on assessment. This can be at adetailed level, but also offers the opportunityfor the examiner to reflect on assessmentpolicy. Other areas covered include academicstandards and the learning experience. Arecent change has been to revise the reportpro forma so that examiners are asked tocategorise any recommendations as 'essential',advisable' or 'desirable'. The disseminationfrom AQaSU of reports containing 'essential'recommendations is accompanied by arequest that the responsible head ofdepartment respond to the external examineron these matters within 14 working days, with

a copy of the response to AQaSU. Failure to comply with such a request in a timelymanner is pursued by AQaSU. The Universitybelieves that this will enable a clearer andmore effective response to concerns and assist it in meeting the requirements ofTeaching Quality Information (TQI).

98 The audit team found many examples of reflective and helpful examiners' reports in the material available and it is clear thatthe report structure assists in the identificationof matters of concern and of good practice.However, the team was concerned to note anumber of instances where examiners hadfailed to complete the report in the requiredformat or had made very cursory statements in key sections. The team read evidence fromexternal examiners which suggested thatthese cases and other matters of reportedconcern had not been followed up. Further,whilst most essential issues had beenresponded to by the head of department inthe required way, examples were observedwhere the detailed response emanated fromthe partner college with a more cursory notefrom the departmental head. The teambelieve that the University will wish toconsider whether, given its intention toinvolve heads of department closely in theassurance of quality and standards of coursesin related areas at PIs, the guidance regardingthe response to externals is providing theright support.

99 The team noted an unfortunate examplewhere delay in responding to examinercriticism one year was followed the next yearwhen student work was not received by the same external examiner. This situationwas further exacerbated because theexaminer was unable to attend theexamination board. The audit team wasconcerned that there appeared no process bywhich UCLan was able to recognise that thishad occurred or was able to assess any impacton academic standards. Another reportindicated that marks from a professional bodyexamination were converted to a form whichwould contribute towards the award of an

University of Central Lancashire

page 18

honours degree. Whilst in itself this is not amatter for concern, the external examinerfurther suggested that the way in which thiswas done varied from year to year. Universityprocedures, once more, did not appear to have picked up his concern. No UCLanrepresentative was in attendance at theexamination boards concerned, albeitstipulated in various regulations sighted by the team. The University was thus unableto note the concerns at first hand.

100 For overseas franchised courses there maybe a local (country-based) external examinerconsidering student work prior to ModuleBoards chaired by a senior UCLan academicmember of staff. The UK external examiner is,nevertheless, provided with samples of workfrom the overseas location to consideralongside the UK work to ensure consistency.Examinations are normally the same in alldelivery centres and are verified by the UKexternal. Where in-country variations toquestions need to be agreed, they areapproved by the UK external after consultationwith the in-country external.

101 The audit team noted the appointment of a single external examiner for singleprogrammes, at all delivery sites, be they UK or overseas. This, together with detailed andcarefully prescribed moderation practicesassociated with networked provision, allowedcomparison of standards across different sitesand, as a consequence, subsequentidentification in external examiners' reports ofsite-specific, as well as course-specific issuesaffecting the student experience. The team alsosaw examples of external examiners' reportswhich demonstrated that examiners took careto address comments to particular delivery siteswhere appropriate and took opportunities tocompare the various sites.

102 The audit team came to the opinion thatUCLan's use of external examiners in CP isbasically sound and, furthermore, the use ofsingle examiners for individual programmes atall delivery sites contributes to good practice inensuring comparability of standards acrossnetworked provision.

The use made of external referencepoints in collaborative provision

103 In its CPSED the University stated that it'…has integrated the requirements of theAcademic Infrastructure (AI) into its ownregulations, policies and procedures and advisesits partners that these have been taken onboard…'. Each section of the Code of practice,published bt QAA, has been considered as it waspublished or revised to ensure that all preceptsare addressed as appropriate within theUniversity's QA mechanisms. Officers in AQaSUconduct a comparison of existing Universityregulations with the precepts of the Code andadvise the appropriate committees of AB ofchanges which may be appropriate. Forexample, the 2004 revision of Section 2 of theCode relating to collaborative provision led to theUniversity requiring partners to forward copies of publicity materials as part of the annualmonitoring process. Other changes include the establishment of PPAG (see paragraph 28),changes to the QA processes for in-houselearning and the resulting production of a UKCollaborative Policies and Procedures documentanalogous to that which was already in existencefor overseas provision. The team noted that, inthe case of at least one overseas validation, thepanel at Stage 1 commended the way in whichthe programme had been mapped onto theprecepts of Section 2 of the Code.

104 In 1998 the University introduced acommon template for programme specificationswhich was updated in 2004. Programmespecifications must specify the extent to which programme aims and outcomes are inalignment with the relevant subject benchmarkstatements. External subject specialists onvalidation and review panels are requiredformally to confirm that the programmespecifications meet this requirement. Samples of validation reports seen by the audit team did include the requisite confirmation from the external panel members. The programmespecification also lists learning outcomes byacademic level, and provides a statementexplaining how the programme supportsstudents' Personal Development Planning.

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 19

105 In 2000 a fundamental review of theUniversity's academic regulations was used asan opportunity to map the institution's awardsagainst the FHEQ and this continues as part ofthe validation and review processes. Externalsubject specialists are asked to consider theframework when confirming their satisfactionwith the standards set for each level of acourse. The audit team was able to confirm thisto be the case through their scrutiny of minutesfrom validation events.

106 The audit team considered that theUniversity had taken a thorough approach to the use of the Academic Infrastructure and the Code of practice published by QAA andconcurred with the University's view that it hadappropriate procedures to respond to furtherchanges as necessary.

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

107 Almost all QAA subject reviews in theUniversity's partner colleges have resulted in confidence being expressed in academicstandards with a significant majority of thejudgements of learning opportunities classed as commendable and the remainder approved.The exception is one review in 2003 at whichno confidence was expressed in academicstandards. The HNC/HND provision underconsideration was small and operated underarrangements with Edexcel rather than UCLan.The programmes concerned are no longeroffered, and UCLan has since validated anetwork Foundation Degree in a relateddiscipline area. The audit team accepts that the regionally networked nature of thisprovides the College with better support in the discipline area.

108 The University has been involved in twoQAA overseas audits, one of its provision in theFire Safety Engineering College in Oman (seeparagraph 21), and the second of its provisionat Shenzhen University in China. Both reportsnoted a number of positive features about the

collaborations as well as recommending thatattention be paid to particular issues. In eachcase the University's response demonstratesthat full consideration had been paid to thereport with recommendations used to furtherdevelop processes and procedures.

109 More recently one PI was subject to a QAAinstitutional audit. The audit team was informedthat the resulting report was discussedinformally with UCLan representatives, but was not formally considered within the UCLandeliberative structure despite the fact that the PI had been advised to consider a number ofmatters relating to the responsibility for, andapplication of, its quality assurance processes.The team formed the view that the Universityshould therefore consider the desirability offormalising the manner in which its deliberativestructures consider reports concerningcollaborative partners which emanate fromexternal agencies.

110 The University stated in its SED that 'at present only one course recognised by aprofessional, statutory or regulatory body is the subject of a collaborative arrangement'. In its reading the audit team discovered thatother courses are recognised by various specialinterest groups, and one additional course isaccredited by a professional body. In meetingswith staff from PIs the team also learned of anumber of initiatives where courses were in theprocess of seeking professional recognition. The team was informed that in some cases ofnetworked provision, the UCLan delivery wasaccredited, whereas at partner colleges no suchaccreditation was present. The team were furtherinformed, however, that discussions wereongoing and the PSRB concerned would assessa partner college, once a cohort had completedthe award at the college.

111 The University has a procedure formonitoring reports of accreditation andreaccredidation by PSRBs which requires thatsuch reports are considered by the relevantdean, head of department and others, such ascourse leaders, as appropriate. Comments onthe report and any actions arising from it aresent to AQaSU. The audit team heard that

University of Central Lancashire

page 20

accreditation outcomes and subsequent actionsare reported in AMRs, and AQaSU makes anannual summary report to ASC. The central roleof departments and faculties in this reportingprocess brings further strength to the regionalnetworked provision.

112 After careful reflection, the audit teamformed the opinion that the University'sprocedures for capturing and evaluating theoutcomes of reviews of its CP by externalagencies was basically sound. However, it wasconcerned to find that the University was notfully aware of all the accredited awards or theprofessionally recognised status of a number of courses.

Student representation incollaborative provision

113 The University states that studentrepresentation is required within all its CP. Theaudit team heard that meetings of course orstaff-student committees to which studentrepresentatives are invited is the usualmechanism by which students have a formalvoice. In the case of networked franchises,partner staff attend course committeesconvened by UCLan and report on issuesarising from student feedback in their localcommittees. For international partnerships thepractice for student feedback is to follow what is customary and culturallyacceptable in the partner's country. Ofparticular note, the University makes use ofstudent representatives in the periodic reviewand validation process; UK collaborative PIs are asked to nominate a student representativeto join the University Review Panel.

114 Partner staff-student committees exist atboth course and school level. In its meetingswith students, the audit team heard that suchcommittees comprised PI staff and students,and would generally not include representationfrom the University. Students also indicatedthat feedback from formal committees wassufficient and appropriate. The team heardthat whilst most courses did have studentrepresentatives, the opportunities offered torepresent their peers was not always taken.

Students indicated that training was rarelyoffered to student representatives and thatwhilst full-time students were generally awareof the committee framework, it was less so thecase for those studying part-time. The teamheard that in UK PIs, class sizes were oftensmall, and that communication between staffand the student cohort was frequent andinformal. The view was expressed that mostissues are resolved this way. Whilst there is noUCLan forum for students on collaborativecourses, the team heard frequently thatcommunication from students to UCLan staffalways received a speedy response. Studentsregularly expressed interest in a cross-partnerstudent committee for networked courses, and the University may wish to consider the benefits that may be gained from such an arrangement.

115 The audit team heard that most studentson UCLan courses in PIs are members of theUCLan Students' Union (SU) but found thatfew have knowledge of its activities andservices. The SU does attend some partnercollege induction activities but the teamdiscovered that in other PIs students were noteasily able to join. Union officers explained the challenges in representing partner collegestudents, both in terms of regularcommunication channels and in thedissemination of information. The SU hasrepresentation on the Partnership Forum. SUofficers acknowledged that whilst they mustgive priority in working with students on themain UCLan campuses, they wished tocontinue working with the University toenhance student representation in PIs.

116 UCLan's policy is for staff to visit overseaspartners at least three times per year. Theymeet students and sit in on staff-studentcommittees. In its meetings, the audit teamdiscovered that for overseas partners, localcourse leaders or administrators maintain closecontact with student representatives. Wherethey exist, staff-student committees meet two to three times per year. The team heardthat some student groups have establishedtheir own interest groups to which they invite

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 21

lecturers. Students indicated that theyinvariably had the opportunity to annuallymeet with UCLan staff.

117 Whilst the audit team recognises variabilityin practice, they found that students aresatisfied with their experience, feel that theirvoices are heard and their concerns resolved.They formed the opinion that studentrepresentational channels were sound.

Feedback from students, graduatesand employers

118 In its CPSED the University stated that ituses student feedback to help ensure that thestudents' experience at PIs is equivalent to thatat UCLan. The University publishes clear andconsistent expectations of matters such as thequality and timeliness of assessment feedback,communication regarding teachingarrangements, the development of employabilityskills and the provision of careers advice.

119 Student feedback is built into Universityquality assurance procedures. The audit teamheard, for example, that meetings withstudents during periodic reviews permit thosestudying in PIs to comment directly on theircourse and their learning experience and tofeed issues raised into the agenda for the mainmeeting. Review panels meet with a group ofthe institution's students.

120 UCLan requires that modules contributingto its awards are evaluated using ModuleEvaluation Questionnaires (MEQ). PIs previouslyhad a choice between using a standardUniversity MEQ or a local variant. In order tobetter enable comparison between courses andsites, UCLan now requires all provision to use acommon MEQ which contains limited provisionfor local tuning. The audit team heard thatoverseas partners generally include outcomesfrom student feedback within their AMR, butrecognised that partners would themselves findit difficult to reflect upon comparativeperformance with other delivery centres. Thenew process has only been in use for oneacademic session, and the team read that forcollaborative provision it is not yet fully

embedded. This was confirmed in meetingswith students who reported that MEQs werenot used uniformly across the University'scollaborative provision.

121 UCLan has taken student feedbackthrough a University-wide Student SatisfactionSurvey at least every other year since 1993. The surveys are conducted on a census basisand data for specific groups, such as those atPIs, is available for detailed analysis byinterested parties. Of approximately 20,000students included in the 2005 survey, 11 per cent responded, and 6 per cent of theresponses received were from students studyingat PIs. The results enable comparison of PIcohorts with those of all respondents. However,some PIs had no student response and no PIhad more than 20 responses; the audit teamread that the response rate within UK PIs wasonly 3.47 per cent.

122 The survey has permitted issues relevantto PI students to be identified. For examplematters relating to students' affinity with theUniversity and regarding communicationbetween the University and its collaborativestudents have been identified. Such issues haveinformed the agenda of the PDT which hasworked alongside the SU to improve students'relationship with UCLan. Innovations haveincluded a welcome booklet to be distributedto all PI students which explains the partnershiprelationship and outlines the facilities andservices available to students. The processes forcontacting off-campus students, both to raiseawareness of the survey and to dist