Trends in TNE Quality Assurance Dr Keith Brown, Director of International Development

Agenda 1.How the landscape has changed for TNE and for Teesside University in particular. 2.Assuring and maintaining standards in UK HEIs. 3.Key issues. 4.Discussion of issues to take forward.

Teesside is doing more 1.We are growing our numbers for international TNE and have a number of new partners coming on stream over the next year. 2.In the UK we have made a strategic decision to increase the number and range of UK public sector partners. 3.This will mean that our collaborative provision will be more likely to be under closer scrutiny by the QAA.

New UK Quality Code for Higher Education has been introduced. Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers implement and manage collaborative arrangements effectively. Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for the academic standards and quality of learning opportunities delivered irrespective of where these take place or who provides them.

New UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Risk assessment New Indicator places emphasis on risk assessment Structures and procedures to be proportionate Providers need to assess their own capabilities as well as the prospective partners.

Need for review Risk assessment to be refreshed on a regular basis Due diligence to be refreshed periodically Written agreements to be monitored and periodically reviewed. New UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

Obligation to students New indicator makes explicit the responsibility of degree-awarding bodies to : – ensure that students admitted can complete under their authority – follow same protocols as ‘in-house ‘ provision for discontinuation of programmes New UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

Certificates and transcripts The name and location of the partner organisation must be on the certificate or transcript New UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

Recent audits 1.Large number of issues emerging from recent audits of collaborative provision. Will cover the key issues in the later section. 2.Some universities getting limited confidence because of their collaborative activities: a.University of Wales – led to withdrawal from collaborative provision b.Leeds Metropolitan University – widespread systemic issues about collaborative; adherence to processes, etc c.Liverpool John Moores University – inadequate mapping of incoming partner’s programme for advanced standing.

What we’ve done and continue to do 1.Monitor all the reports on collaborative provision audits to identify potential issues for Teesside University. 2.Analyse the new code and ensure we make changes. 3.Ensure that we keep our quality handbook and processes up to date.

1.Completely new Operations Manual was introduced for and has been updated since. 2.Significantly enhanced our due diligence prior to commencing a partnership. 3.Separating out institutional approval from location/programme approval. 4.Undertake partnership review every six years. 5.Tightened monitoring What we’ve done and continue to do Specifically:

QAA Institutional Review Rolling cycle approx 6 yearly The review team makes judgments on how the institution:  sets and maintains threshold academic standardsthreshold academic standards  manages the quality of students' learning opportunitieslearning opportunities  enhances its educational provision enhances  manages the quality of its public information (from ).public information Also highlights good practice May visit collaborative partners and students

Key Issues Following are the key issues which we have identified from analysis of audits and the new code and other publications.

Student Voice 1.Constant theme collaborative students not as involved as students on campus. 2.Student representation – “a challenge”. 3.Getting feedback from students, access to primary data. We will be ing students directly. 4.Feeding our evaluation back to the students. 5.Ensuring that students see external examiners’ reports. 6.Student voice into programme boards, programme review.

Teaching Staff 1.Ensuring they are same standard, or higher, as home teachers. 2.Ensuring that the University approves teaching staff in advance of them being deployed to teach on TU programmes.

Assessment 1.Moderation and standards. 2.Issue identified by a number of our external examiners a.To some extent cultural: UK we tend to mark with 70% as a very good mark; overseas good marks often 90%. Makes comparison of standards difficult. b.In some cases major differences in marking – eg one student moderated from a good pass to a fail.

External Examiners 1.Appointed by the University 2.Comment on quality across all instances of the programmes/modules they are responsible for. 3.Make a judgement as to the standards being applied across the University. 4.Asked to make specific comments re collaborative programmes if they have concerns.

Academic Misconduct 1.How we tackle: a.Who does what? b.Informal stages. c.Cultural issues at play. 2.Ideally need to compare between centres.

Monitoring of Web and other Marketing 1.Our obligation to ensure that all marketing is consistent with our standards and all claims etc made are approved by the University prior to publication. 2.No trade marks etc used incorrectly (eg QAA logo). 3.Annual monitoring by Centre Leader will check all publications and advertising.

Staff Development 1.TU provide this in terms of managing our programmes, assessments, etc. It is not intended as subject-specific staff development. 2.We are developing a staff development programme for our centre leaders so that they can give consistent staff development to our centres.

Risk Assessment/Due Diligence 1.Early stages enhanced. Exit strategies need agreement at the start. 2.Risk assessments to be enhanced, currently too formulaic. Will include TU risks as well as partner risks. 3.Need to regularly refresh: a.Risk assessment. b.Due diligence c.Memorandum – now doing this annually.

Dual/Joint Awards