UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE OVERSEAS STANDING … · The next review of collaborative provision of BA (Hons) Sports Management Top-Up for the School of Sports, Performing Arts and

Confirmed AAR 19.11.07 1

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE OVERSEAS STANDING PANEL 2006-07 ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE – 1074

CONFIRMED Recommendation to University Quality Committee The Standing Panel was asked to Validate the collaborative provision of BA (Hons) Sports Management Top-Up for the School of Sports, Performing Arts and Leisure, with Novation Business School, Singapore and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Committee approval of the following proposals: VALIDATION Pathway

Code Pathway Title Final

Award Intermediate

Awards Specialist

/Joint Modes of delivery

DS/SM Sport Management BA (Hons)

None Specialist Block

MODULES Semester New

Module ( )

Module code

Module Title Credits Core / Core option or elective

Delivered by

Customised SR3024 Sport, Politics and Development

30 Core UW

Customised LI3007 Strategic Management for the Leisure and Lifestyle Industries

15 Core UW

Customised LI3012 Employability Skills III: the Leisure and Lifestyle Industries Consultancy Project

15 Core UW

Customised LI3004 The Leisure and Lifestyle Research and Information Project

30 Core UW

Customised LI3018 The Changing Face of Sport Management

15 Core UW

Customised LI3015 Event Management 15 Core UW In support of these recommendations, the Validating Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist The Validating Panel is aware that the University Quality Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit. DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of collaborative provision of BA (Hons) Sports Management Top-Up for the School of Sports, Performing Arts and Leisure, with Novation Business School, Singapore is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2009-2010 academic year. (The home award will be reviewed in 2008-09. By this time the Novation programme will only have been running for one year and the internal SSPAL team have been asked to monitor carefully developments on the programme in Year One of its operation. It seems therefore too early to make the full review of Novation coincide with the internal review. However, given the likely influence of


changes in the home review on the thinking in terms of module content and delivery in the subject area, the Panel would not want the review of Novation to be later than 3 years after its initial iteration i.e. therefore in 2009-10). Summary of process:

Date Activity See appendix 29.11.06 Initial planning meeting Appendix 1 – meeting

notes 17.1.07 Visit to Novation by OSP members Appendix 2 – visit report

Receipt of External Adviser’s report Appendix 3 – External Adviser report

5.3.07 Validation meeting Appendix 4 – meeting notes

30.4.07 Receipt of revised documentation - 03.05.07 Panel request further clarification. Appendix 5 17.5.07 OSP meeting to identify final issues - 25.5.07 Response received from Team Appendix 6 6.6.07 OSP give approval for July start. - 26.6.07 Final documentation received by Officer -

18.10.07 Response to External Adviser Appendix 7 31.10.07 External Adviser confirmed all issues addressed: “I am happy

to report that all the issues that I raised have been addressed to my full satisfaction - a lot of hard work has clearly been put in; 'well done' to all concerned.”

-

- Extract of Overseas Standing Panel Minutes Appendix 8 - Checklist Appendix9

Academic Approval Record Summary of findings This may cover conclusions on the outcome of review, the proposal and/or the provision and you may want to list strengths and weaknesses identified. This was a rigorous validation, requiring three sets of submission documentation and exhaustive email correspondence with the Team. The External Adviser was involved by correspondence, but was unable to visit Novation. The Panel’s main concerns related to the adaptation of the validated UW award to both the Singapore context and block delivery. There was an incremental resolution to the issues identified during validation. These were addressed by correspondence and in the revised documentation. Two significant issues remained for monitoring by SSPAL SQEC, and are identified in the main action checklist.

The main point the Panel wished to stress to SSPAL was that, although the programme was validated, the Panel would be reassured if SSPAL, through its own SQEC, could ensure careful monitoring of two aspects of the programme during the first year's delivery i.e. following the life cycle of the cohort starting off in July 2007.

These two aspects are: a) delivery of the programme, i.e. logistics and comparability of student experience to UoW b) student support i.e. how successfully this works through designated support staff at Novation and via uptake of WOLF and Pebblepad.

This need not be massively onerous and could be further supported by other staff who happen to be over in Singapore (especially when no block delivery from SSPAL staff is taking place), and who could speak to the students on the mechanisms and information in place to support them.

The Panel and Team discussed the arrangements for annual monitoring; the Panel favoured separate monitoring for the collaborative provision, whilst the Team favoured “total” monitoring of both home and overseas provision. The Panel referred the issue to the External Adviser, who responded, “…I


would tend to support the team. Separate monitoring has some practical advantages, but total monitoring is clearly better quality practice”. The Panel will review the first year of annual monitoring to ensure this is the most appropriate arrangement. The Team provided evidence of strong, local support in Novation. Delivery commenced in July 2007. Collaborative Arrangements All delivery is undertaken by UW staff. Premises, learning support, administrative and technical support is provided by Novation Business College, Singapore. Long-term there may be greater responsibility for delivery by Novation staff, but it was agreed during this process, that such a development would require a further validation. Good Practice / Enhancement The External Adviser identified the following points of good practice

1. Good provision of documentation to Novation.

2. Dual appointment of course supervisor and administrator.

3. Good use of alternative facilities for students, e.g. local libraries.

4. External examiner to visit Singapore.

5. Relevance of the course and it adaptation possibilities to local market.

Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University Adaptation of home validated modules for overseas delivery Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s)

Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by

SSPAL SQEC In the first year the SQEC must review student support. Novation has named staff who will provide student support, but the division of responsibilities is not clear i.e.how successfully this works through designated support staff at Novation and via uptake of WOLF and Pebblepad..

July 2008

SSPAL SQEC SQEC to also review the induction points and sequencing of modules.

July 2008

SSPAL SQEC SQEC to also review the delivery of the programme i.e. logistics and comparability of student experience to UoW

July 2008

Interim report addressing all issues to OSP on 3rd July

2008

SSPAL SQEC OSP to review arrangements for annual monitoring, to identify if separate or total annual monitoring is the most appropriate.

At the end of first annual monitoring cycle (December

2008)

OSP

Team Team to introduce a system of ensuring that the booklists and book-stock are up-dated annually

Annual Monitoring

SSPAL SQEC


for each module and to check that the books are available in situ.

Team Ongoing monitoring will be required via an annual monitoring system of the undertakings to which Novation has Committed itself.

Annual Monitoring

SSPAL SQEC

Team Ongoing monitoring of entry requirements, particularly English language requirements, in the light of greater recruitment outside Singapore.

Annual Monitoring

SSPAL SQEC

Team Ongoing monitoring of equal opportunities in terms of recruitment of female students.

Annual Monitoring

SSPAL SQEC

Note – this action checklist should not contain actions which would need to be closed by the Panel before final approval was given e.g. revision of submission documentation. Date the draft AAR was approved for submission to the AAR Sub Group for ratification by the Standing / Validation Panel Chair.

7.11.07


VALIDATING PANEL RECORD Details of Panel and Participants Chair: Professor Jo Allan Associate Dean, School of Education Officer: Ms Maggie Jones, Quality and Academic Standards Division Panel members designated to Validate the provision: Mr Mike Townsend, Chair, Head of International Language Centre Mr Phil Harris, School of Engineering and the Built Environment Dr Ann Latham, School of Computing and Information Technology Independent External Adviser for the Review / Revalidation / Validation: (delete if not applicable) Name: Dr John Beech Position: Head of Sport and Tourism Applied Research, Coventry University Business School Subject/Pathway Team Representative(s) from School of Sports, Performing Arts and Leisure for the Validation: Mr John Pymm, Dean, School of Sports, Performing Arts and Leisure Mr Steven Gelder Ms Rachel Livesy


Appendix 1 – Initial Planning Meeting Notes

Initial Planning Meeting for BA (Hons) Sports Management top-up proposal

with Novation, Singapore Wednesday 29 November 2006

Present: Mike Townsend, HLSS (Deputy Chair of OSP) Steve Gelder, SSPAL (Key Proposer) Carolyn Barrett, QASD (Officer) A PROPOSAL PLAN HAD ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED AND DISCUSSED AT THE OVERSEAS STANDING PANEL (OSP). THE OSP WERE HAPPY WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED SO FAR AND WERE WILLING TO TAKE THE PROPOSAL FURTHER. THIS MEETING WAS HELD TO DISCUSS FURTHER DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS, TO SET DEADLINE AND MEETING DATES AND TO ANSWER ANY QUERIES FROM THE KEY PROPOSER. BACKGROUND BA (Hons) Sports Management is already delivered at UoW and was originally developed from an undergraduate Leisure Management degree. UoW owns the academic material and teaching rights for the pathway. The proposed start dates were either April or September 2007. Ideally, the proposing team would like to aim for an April start, therefore there was some urgency in validating this proposal as soon as possible. It was recommended that if the partner institution wanted to market the course before it was validated, all marketing materials must state clearly that the course is “to be validated”. QUERIES FROM THE KEY PROPOSER SG asked for clarification about how to deliver a “flexible” approach, similar to that offered to home students, when the resources at the partner institution would restrict the amount of flexibility that could be offered. MT confirmed that courses delivered overseas were usually more prescribed with suitable elective modules suggested to meet the pathway outcomes. The validation team would recognise that not all options could be offered due to the practicalities of delivering the modules. Offering a prescribed delivery would also help keep the provision to low student numbers cost effective. RESOURCES VISIT A resources visit had been proposed to take place around 17 – 19 January 2007 (actual dates to be confirmed) as UoW were due to participate in fairs and exhibitions in Singapore/Malaysia area at that time. It had been proposed that MT and Phil Harris (SEBE) attend this visit. It was noted from the proposal plan that the partner institution was due to move to new premises on 1st December 2006. It was presumed that the visiting team would see the new premises during their visit. The proposal stated that a cohort of 15 students was expected at each intake. MT stressed that the proposing team needed to ensure the recruitment of the minimum number of students at each intake taking into consideration the competitors in the market. MT would try to establish the current position with the partner institution and competitors during the resources visit. Areas that needed clarification from the proposal team The name of main person to contact at Novation needed to be confirmed by the proposal team. SG was to nominate a suitable person as the External Adviser for the validation. The External Adviser would not be expected to visit the partner institution but would require the documentation for the validation event.


The OSP had a few concerns about the status of Novation. They appeared to had taken over a company called Asia Specific Sports & Education Pvt. Ltd. From the proposal it seemed as if this company would be the main link. The OSP would require clarification of the relationship and who would be providing the tutors to deliver the support. Issues for the proposal team to consider MT enquired about the long term plans for the delivery i.e. if there were any plans for local staff to deliver the full programme without input from UoW staff. The proposal team would need to ensure that the extra resources required at UoW had been costed. It was recommended that this was thought through thoroughly. It was noted from the proposal that it was thought that SSPAL did not need to provide extra admin. support. The proposal team would need to consider whether the option whereby the students could come to UoW to undertake the course could be offered. This is something that the students may not take up due to the cost implications, but was currently not mentioned in the proposal as an alternative. UoW had in place an Equal Opportunities policy. The proposal team should investigate whether the partner institution had an equivalent policy and if not, suggest that they adopt the UoW policy. It was noted that it is not always possible to enforce the policy if the partner institution were not willing implement it. An induction programme would need to take place. This may be combined with other activities during a visit to the partner institution early on in the term. For off-site delivery, the main queries of from the validation team would be regarding the extent of the support offered by the partner institution regarding administration, advertising and enrolment. It was noted that one particular module, which required students to produce a project or dissertation, would not require any teaching but would require tutorial support by the partner institution staff. Further research / experience UWBS, SAS and SEBE had all had experience of this type of delivery in Singapore. It was suggested that SG contacted Colin Morgan in SEBE to obtain some feedback from his experiences on delivering courses in Singapore and that Alexa Haslem in UWBS was contacted to obtain some information about the number and progression status of students on the BA (Hons) Business Studies (a course delivered in a similar manner at Novation). Information already included in the documentation or that is not required The proposal plan already included some information that would be required by the validation team. Other information mentioned in the Academic Proposal documentation was identified as not appropriate to this proposal. The planning approval document had been completed. It would need to be signed by the appropriate members of staff. Details of the potential market, student demand and employability of graduates had already been included in the proposal. The management of the partner institutions committee structures did not need to be provided as the pathway is entirely owned by UoW. Strategic plans and mission statements would not be required. It was noted that there had been no previously unsuccessful collaborations with the partner institution. It had already been checked that the proposal was inline with the regional strategy. The status of the partner institution and their quality processes had been detailed in the proposal plan.


Further documentation/information required for the validation The validation team would find it useful to be presented with the format of the current home delivery. This could be presented in the form of the current MST and PST documents. Module and Pathway documentation specific to the pathway would be required. The existing documentation for the home delivery could be amended to fit this purpose. The extent of online learning should be stated in module guide. An Award Guide specific for overseas delivery would also be required. A Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) (the legal documentation) would need to be written for the partnership. SG to contact Jo Mills in Education Partnerships for advice on how to do this and access to the templates and existing MoCs for examples. The course would require an admission criteria regarding the basic English language level of IELTS 6.0 or equivalent or 6 years continuous education in English. It was noted that recruitment by the partner institution appeared to be from other countries as well as Singapore therefore, the proposal team should be careful when checking the English language levels of applicants. A statement in the MoC would be required regarding how the partner institution would check the English language levels. A financial model and business case should be included in the Annex of the MoC. This should include student fees and recharge arrangements etc. It was recognised as good practice for a checklist of activities to be completed before and after the visits to the institution to be developed, for example, to include arrangements for assessments and when the course would finish. As the partner institution already had existing partnerships with other schools at UoW, documentation to prove this would be sufficient to cover details about the progression agreements. A statement regarding staff appointment and induction procedures at the partner institution would be required if their staff were to be involved in delivering the programme or supporting the students. Clarification on how much of the student support and welfare and guidance would be provided by UoW and the partner institution would be required. If the partner institution would be providing the support it would need to be identified if they require support from UoW in doing this. Details of their procedures for dealing with situations would need to be provided. The responsibility for dealing with student academic misconduct would need to be considered. The documentation would need to be include the procedures to be undertaken in such instances. UoW procedures could be amended and included where appropriate. As the partner institution is a private organisation, a financial statement would be required. Information about the partner institutions quality and standards procedures had already been provided. To support this, sample monitoring reports from the feeder programmes would need to be included in the validation documentation. A statement or set of procedures detailing the partner institutions admin systems – how they will deal with the enrolment, fee collecting and record keeping of the students on the course, would be required. For APL and mapping purposes, the contents of the diploma offered by partner institution would need to be presented as part of the validation documents. A statement from SSPAL should be included to confirm that the diploma is sufficient. The proposal stated that the mode of delivery for the pathway was distance learning using blended learning through block delivery. SG confirmed that UoW staff would visit Singapore to teach. Tutorial support would be offered online in between block deliveries by the staff based at the partner institution. As members of staff from the partner institution were part of the proposal, the names of the staff, their CVs including their experience, background, level of English (must be a minimum of IELTS 6.5), and a


statement detailing how much input they would be required to contribute to, must be included in the validation documentation. It was recommended that all documentation was checked prior to submission to make sure that it reflects the mode and place of delivery. Deadlines The next meeting of OSP would be held on 18 January 2007. It was agreed that the deadline for the documentation to be submitted would be 12 January 2007 so that the documentation was available before the resources visit took place. The documentation should be forwarded to MT directly. It was agreed that a date for the validation event would be set after resources visit had taken place.


Appendix 2 – OSP Resource Visit Report Overseas Standing Panel

Checklist for Overseas Standing Panel Visits (Final) DRAFT REPORT Award / Programme /School: BA Sports Management : SSPAL Details of Partner Institution: Novation Business College, Singapore Date of Visit: 17 January 2007 UW Staff involved (OSP/Team): M.Townsend, P.Harris, Dr. A.Latham Partner Staff involved in visit (names/roles):

Ronnie Lee: Director of Novation and responsible for the programme Tony Lee: External consultant to Ronnie Lee, course tutor Abdul Rashid: deputy leader and registrar Elan Govan: led articulation agreement with UWBS, IT technician

Purpose of visit Resource visit, understanding of partner, input into overall validation process

Issue Comments

CURRICULUM Comments on modules There will be 4 intakes over 4 years to correspond with when

UK staff can come to Singapore to deliver. There will be no prerequisite level 3 modules. The dissertation is always the last module assessed. The planned cycle produced by Novation has incorrect dates and must be amended to show the correct programme structure. All students will have completed the advanced diploma. Class sizes will be capped at 30 which will mean proposed intakes of around 15 each time. The status of the dissertation and suitable preparatory time for this module need clarification.

Comments on mapping/advanced standing/articulation agreement

The mapping of Novation’s diploma and advanced diploma to SSPAL’s first two years has been satisfactorily completed

Mode of delivery LEARNING & TEACHING / ASSESSMENT

Main Issues/ points to note: a) All supporting documentation for the modules will be given in a pack three weeks prior to commencement of modules. b) Novation staff need be inducted to modules and to shadow module delivery, particularly in early years. c) All academic regulations are in line with UoW processes and practices. d) The module leaders will notify Novation of hand in dates before the start of the module and Novation will collect and distribute student work to UoW lecturers. e) A course supervisor and an administrator from both UoW and Novation will be appointed to oversee the programme f) Once UoW lecturers return to the UK after teaching on site, Novation will provide tutorial support to the students. This will be based upon UoW learning outcomes and content but to give relevance to non European practice and will


involve 3 sessions per module. To support this SSPAL lecturers will leave a full module set of materials and provide further materials via WOLF.

What arrangements have been made for student assessment in terms of moderation, subject & award boards,. How will students be made aware of regulations relating to academic misconduct?

Moderation will be carried out entirely by UoW staff in the first instance, though it is planned to include local staff increasingly in this area over a five-year period. There is some concern from the Panel that SSPAL/Novation only intend the results to appear before the twice-yearly existing UoW subject boards and not have a specific award board. Timings, frequency and location need to be clarified. Information on UoW regulations will be provided during induction and within the Award Guide, specially adapted for Singapore-based students

For post-validation meetings – comments by students / staff (use home validation proforma?)

n/a

Panel comments on teaching accommodation and facilities.

Adequate teaching facilities are available at Novation in terms of rooming, with four classrooms equipped satisfactorily and one computer room, all providing an amount of space per student which exceeds the minimum government standards set. There is adequate provision of office space and storage for administering the programme.

Panel comments on social facilities A cafe for meals and refreshments is available on the ground floor of the building.

STUDENT SUPPORT & GUIDANCE

Arrangements for student support Abdul Rashid will act not only as main administrator but also personal tutor for students on the programme. For academic advice during modules students will be able to contact UK-based SSPAL staff during their teaching periods in Singapore or via e-mail outside those times.

Recruitment Are students recruited from outside this institution? Advertising and marketing English Language competence

It is expected that a large percentage of students will come from completing advanced diploma students of Novation, indeed, all will come from Novation for the first intake. Other likely sources include diplomates of Nanyang and Republic Polytechnics and currently active national-level sportsmen and women as well as those involved in sports management with coaching backgrounds and diplomas in Business management. The Singapore Trades Union Council can subsidise students on Novation programmes for 90% of their fees. In all cases students must complete Novation’s advanced diploma before entry to the degree (i.e. no APEL routes) This will be carried out entirely by Novation, promoting the full BA degree made up of advanced diploma plus top-up year. Several examples of previous press releases and success stories were shown as a model for how Novation intends to promote the programme. All Novation students must have IELTS 5.5. to start the advanced diploma, which like all Novation courses is


delivered and assessed entirely in English. This applies also to students Novation recruits from outside Singapore who, it is claimed, achieve a level equivalent to 5.5 by taking an English preparatory programme ain Singapore, validated by Lincoln University in New Zealand. The panel’s concern here is establishing whether Lincoln’s programme is indeed equivalent to IELTS 5.5. Assuming the 5.5 entry level to the advanced diploma is achieved, then this, plus the full year and completion of the advanced diploma in English, would provide equivalence to IELTS 6.0 as a start point for the UoW award.

Induction This will take place at Novation for each new intake and will be delivered by UoW visiting staff with support from local staff.

Enrolment It is proposed that the UoW SE Asia Office help in enrolling students via SITS and in their module registration

LEARNING RESOURCES Acquisitions policy / purchasing policy

One core text for each module will be purchased by Novation and provided to each student.

Book stock The book stock is low at present. The plan is to increase this by purchases of both the key texts and other highly recommended ones over time. More books are available at the Sports Council and National Libraries which were both inspected by the validation team. Students pay a token fee of $5 per annum for membership of these libraries. The National Library in particular is very modern and impressive in its facilities. The library even promised to purchase books suggested by the SSPAL team!

Journal stock Not available directly at Novation, but can be facilitated a) by student access to online journals held by UoW learning centres b) those available at the Sports Council and National Libraries.

English language material availability All relevant material is in English and English language books and journals constitute the vast majority of the holdings of the libraries mentioned.

Access / opening hours / loan facilities Novation is open from 0830 to 2200 on weekdays. Books may be taken out on loan. Similar opening hours apply to the two support libraries mentioned.

Sample reading lists These will be provided by SSPAL lecturers for each module. Internet access Available via hard connections throughout the Novation

building. It is expected anyway that the whole of Singapore island will have wireless access within 3 years.

Awareness of access to UW electronic resources, including full text journals

Novation are aware of the availability of these to full UoW students

Awareness of local external collections including access & borrower status

Good awareness of value of and access to major relevant local collections.

ICT FACILITIES Appropriateness of ICT (compatibility / specialist)

The machines provided are compatible

Capacity allocation to students Novation has 12 static computers which may be accessed during opening times. Each classroom has one networked computer. However, the expectation is that most students will have and use their own laptops.

Access to TSL This will occur in line with the teaching/learning patterns of the modules to be delivered

Access to ICT (availability; ratio) See above. Access to WOLF Available


Access to printers A small number of printers are available. Contingency plans in the event of a technical failure

Elan Govan uses his technical expertise to troubleshoot

Availability of technical support As above Renewal policy for computers Once approximately every three years. There is an open

licence agreement with Microsoft. QA / ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES Admin. Support What does admin support cover (i.e. purely administrative or does it also cover student/tutorial support?

Administrative support includes liaison with SE Asia Office regarding enrolment; liaison with students to inform them of deadlines; collection of assignments and forwarding them to UoW. Novation stressed the highly personal nature of the contacts which build up between the managing team and the relatively small number of students and that they attempt to resolve issues at the local level before having recourse to UoW.

Are equal opportunities issues appropriately addressed? (Disability/ gender issues)

There is a national policy in Singapore towards EO which Novation is committed to, and there is access for people with special needs facilitated openly by the National Library. The team would like to see the EO statement of Novation, however. There appear not to have been any students at Novation with physical or mental disabilities to date so that the matter has not been seen an issue. Access to the building (at least via the café and then lift) would seem just about feasible for wheelchair users. Although the issue was not discussed, one panel member felt there might be an issue of gender imbalance (very few if any females) among the prospective recruitment to the programme.

Experience of HE level programmes and of Collaboration with overseas universities

Novation has previous experience notably in a Masters programme with Sheffield Hallam.

How are staff and student views fed into the course management process?

This is done via staff/student liaison meetings for each module held with both UoW and Novation staff at times when UoW staff are present.

What arrangements are planned to ensure the effectiveness of the links between the two Universities?

A programme management team will be established with single point responsibility in both Novation and SSPAL. Programme meetings will take place throughout the year.

STAFFING What staff will be supporting this programme and what are their roles? What is the current experience of staff in teaching on HE level programmes in the same or similar field of study? (Staff CVs required)

As noted above, Mr. R.Lee will direct the Novation operation, supported by Mr.A Rashid as chief administrator and Mr. E. Govan as technical support. In addition up to 8 of 16 existing part-time teachers will support the programme. All have a minimum Masters degree qualification. There will be a maximum of 3 of these for any one module. Full CVs have been supplied of six staff and short resumes of the other 10. However, Novation, in discussion with SSPAL, will have to define the exact staff to take part in the programme on a module by module basis. CVs must also be provided for all those who have a role. This role is foreseen to grow over time to include teaching duties, but in the first few iterations it will be restricted to the provision of tutorial support to the extent reported above.

Opportunities for Staff Development for UW and overseas staff. What staff development activities have staff engaged in over the past 12 months, which relate to this programme?

Some limited staff development will be available to Novation staff in induction periods when SSPAL staff are in situ. Novation also promote staff attendance at relevant training events in Singapore.

What steps have been taken to prepare the Team for delivery of the

Induction for all relevant Novation part-time lecturers will take place at the start of each module and it is intended that


programme? the local staff will shadow the SSPAL staff in their delivery of the module. Local staff will also be encouraged to attend training events in Singapore.

English Language competence and evidence of IELTS 6.5 or equivalent

The Panel made it clear that all teaching and tutorial support staff must show evidence of IELTS 6.5 or equivalent. It was agreed for those staff whose first and second degrees were entirely through the medium of English and who could show at least two years of teaching at undergraduate or Masters level in English, that this level of expertise would be deemed to be equivalent to IELTS 6.5. Where the above factors could not be adduced from the CV, it was incumbent on the lecturer to provide concrete evidence of English language competence.

Issues raised by ADP / OSP for specific attention.

1) exact role of the external examiner and whether this person is separately selected just for this programme or would be the same person as for the UK iteration.

2) Provision of a clear programme structure with entry dates and start dates of modules, particularly in respect of the dissertation

3) Need for a clear statement of who the local tutors are to be for each module, with their CVs and clarification of English language competence where required. Novation need to ensure also that there is adequate cover for local staff supporting particular modules in the event of illness of one staff member.

4) The Panel would like to see the creation of an award board specific for this Award and an explanation of when this would meet.

5) Provision of an equal opportunity statement from Novation and information on existing and projected relative male/female student numbers.

6) Detailed information to be provided of Lincoln University’s English programme for preparing non-Singaporean students for entry to Novation diplomas.

7) Ongoing monitoring will be required via an annual monitoring system of the undertakings to which Novation has Committed itself.

Confirmation of national / international recognition / status of courses.

Novation is inspected by Singapore’s QA body “Casetrust” which provides recognition for its diploma and advanced diploma. Casetrust demands at least a self-monitoring report each year and may inspect as much as annually.

Programmes run by the institution. Full-time diplomas and advanced diplomas (business and sports areas), plus BA programmes in collaboration with the following external HE institutions: Auckland Institute of Studies, Lincoln University (both NZ); Deakin University (Australia); Buckinghamshire Chilterns, Sheffield Hallam (UK); also Masters programmes with Sheffield Hallam and Deakin.

. Appendix 3 – External Adviser Report


Overseas Standing Panel Proforma for External Adviser Report NAME Dr John Beech Date 24 Feb 07 Award BA (Hons.) Sport Management Institution Report based on Correspondence or Visit Correspondence Date of visit (if appropriate) Because of the timing of the review and my overseas commitments, I have added my notes at the end and cross-referred to them in order to return this form quickly. 1.0 Appropriateness of programme aims and outcomes Please include comments on whether the aims and outcomes appropriate to the culture and employment context of the overseas partner (e.g. culture of learning and teaching; learning and teaching style; professional and employment context; impact of the delivery mode). I see no significant cross-cultural teaching. Learning or employment problems. I have noted Detail of the Approval Document, Bullet 3, but this is essentially an issue of presentation. 2.0 Programme design, content and organisation Please include comments on the rationale for, and impact of, the mode of delivery and the appropriateness of the proposed “lifecycle”. No issues here. 3.0 Entry qualifications and level of achievement Is there a clear rationale of entry requirements? Please include comments on arrangements for APL and, where appropriate, progression agreements. Again, no academic issues – this seems to have been well thought through. The EFL level for entry perhaps needs revisiting – see Queries 1. 4.0 Appropriateness of assessment Are the assessment strategies and methods appropriate in the context of transnational delivery? No issues. 5.0 Learning and teaching methods Are the learning and teaching methodologies appropriate in the context of transnational / block delivery? Do they reflect cross cultural issues and understanding? No issues – see Comments 5. 6.0 Learning resources / specialist resources Do the resources match the requirements of the curriculum and intended programme outcomes? No significant problems. See Good Practice 3, but also Details of the Approval Document 4. 7.0 Comments relating to the modules


Do you have any concerns with any of the modules? Are there any points of good practice you would like to identify in relation to the modules? No concerns other than those noted under Details of the Approval Document 4. 8.0 Student support and guidance Are the arrangements for recruitment, admission and induction satisfactory? Please comment on how responsibility for student support and guidance is shared between UW and the partner. Please comment on personal tutoring arrangements. This appears well thought out and as rigorous as can be planned. 9.0 Staff CVs Do the overseas staff CVs demonstrate relevant research and scholarship to underpin learning and teaching? These were not made available and I am therefore unable to comment. 10.0 Management of the collaborative link Please comment on the management of the collaborative link. Again this seems well thought out and I have no obvious concerns. 11.0 Quality Monitoring Please comment on quality monitoring processes. Again this seems well thought out. See final comment. 12.0 Any other comments See final comment. 13.0 Recommendations I have no essential recommendations (i.e. requirements) but would refer to various detailed points below. As I state in the final comments below “Mutatis mutandis, I would clearly support the proposed course of action.” Signed:

____________________________________________(E

xternal Adviser)


NOTES BY DR JOHN BEECH, COVENTRY UNIVERSITY, ON

BA (HONS.) SPORT MANAGEMENT – NOVATION, SINGAPORE Apologies that the report is supplied in note format, but my travel circumstances dictate that I have to produce responses within a day and a half of receipt of the documents. Comments

1. The lack of female applicants is of course a matter for concern, but predictable.

2. Need to follow up on the provision of (Novation) staff CVs.

3. There seems to be a lack of any detail on opportunities for staff development at Novation, or indeed any detail on whether these opportunities have been taken up.

4. Personally I would be against a separate award board – this seems a recipe for non-convergence of quality standards. Doesn’t this actually contradict the statement in para 8a (p.10) of the approval document that “The pathway will not use any quality management and enhancement systems that are additional to the standard University/School mechanisms” (my emphasis)?

5. The flying faculty model seems rigorous.

6. I have not been provided with any CVs of Novation staff. Those of the named Novation staff would have been helpful.

7. For someone outwith the University of Wolverhampton, there was a sea of esoteric acronyms to wade through.

Queries

1. Is the assumption that IELTS 5.5 plus completion of the Advanced Diploma is the equivalent of IELTS 6.0 valid? Is the IELTS score system actually that good an indicator of meeting the required level of language skills (it is an average of three of the four core language skills)?

2. Will the purchase of book stock be monitored? How?

3. “Final authority for student admissions rests with the University of Wolverhampton but this is delegated to NBS for standard applicants” (Approval doc, p6) What does this mean in practice? What constitutes ‘standard’ and how exactly will non-standard applicants be handled?

Concerns

1. Need for clarification of main Novation contact person and status of Novation.

2. Need for an Equal Opportunities policy at Novation. (or have these been sorted during the January Overseas Standing Panel visit?)

3. Lack of any control over, or at least information on, the marketing of the course.

4. I find the IELTS level of 6.5 for staff disappointingly low (and IELTS arguably inappropriate in any case).


5. I feel Wolverhampton should have some say in the arrangements for graduation ceremonies (p.11 of the approval document). Graduation is, after all, the highest profile the University has in the local environment, and presumably will normally involve some members of Wolverhampton staff.

Identification of Good Practice

6. Good provision of documentation to Novation.

7. Dual appointment of course supervisor and administrator.

8. Good use of alternative facilities for students, e.g. local libraries.

9. External examiner to visit Singapore.

The Details of the Approval Document

1. Part A Pathway Definition Form p.1. Surely ‘other’ for location of delivery needs to be ticked!

2. Next page: Source of funding – HEFCE ??

3. There are some inevitable documentation problems with the ‘translation’ of ‘home’ courses to overseas locations e.g. para 9 of the Pathway Specification reads rather oddly with its references to Wakefield, Kent and Bisham Abbey. I suspect though that is an insoluble problem. In the same section, para 10.2, there is reference to the use of NUDIST and SPSS – is this actually possible at Novation (or really necessary, to be honest)?

4. The module specifications raise some issues, specifically with respect to the reading lists:

• They give the impression of having been regularly updated by addition, but without deletion.

• Some texts are more than ten years old and not really relevant (e.g. in Strategic Management for the Leisure and Lifestyles Industries, recommended resources include Eaton’s 1996 European Leisure Businesses).

• There are major inconsistencies across the modules of quantity of both ‘key texts’ and ‘recommended texts’.

• Some lists are not even alpha-sorted – looks bad!

I must confess ignorance of how these documents are used at Wolverhampton. If this includes the basis for library purchases, Novation will be, arguably, badly misled. If it includes the role of student’s reading list, the students will be, arguably, badly misled

5. In Section 7 of the Pathway Guide, is the discussion of work placement opportunities appropriate? If Novation students receive a copy of the Pathway Guide, they may well be confused. In a similar vein, do Section 11 Student Problem Solver and Appendix 1 Guidance to Students apply, or is a Novation variant needed?

Notwithstanding the various points made above, the course has a good feel to it and the proposed Novation collaboration bodes well. The involvement of CASETRUST and the Singapore Ministry of Education provide important quality ‘kite-marks’. Mutatis mutandis, I would clearly support the proposed course of action. Dr John Beech, Head of Sport and Tourism Applied Research Coventry University Business School, Faculty of Business, Environment and Society Coventry University, 5 Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB


Appendix 4 - Notes of Validation Meeting

Minutes of the Overseas Standing Panel Validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top with Novation, Singapore. Meeting held on Monday 5th March at 12.15pm in MU220, City Campus. Present: Mr M Townsend, Chair Dr A Latham, SCIT Mr P T Harris, SEBE Mr John Pymm, SSPAL Mr Steve Gelder, SSPAL Ms Rachel Livesey, SSPAL Ms Maggie Jones, Officer Noted: The Panel members convened at 12.15pm for a brief discussion. Noted: The Panel made reference to a draft agenda circulated by the Chair, and the

comments of the External Adviser (received by correspondence). Noted: It was agreed that the documentation was insufficient on which to base a decision

regarding validation and that a revised set of documentation would be required. Noted: The Officer reported that she had been contacted by the key proposer the night before

documentation was due to be circulated The key proposer had stated that the document was not complete and awaited further minor amendments. As the deadline for the meeting was approaching, and in the knowledge that there had been difficulty in convening a mutually convenient meeting with the Team, the officer advised the key proposer to submit the documentation, but to be aware that a revised set of documentation would likely be required by the Panel.

Noted: Novation seeks a July 2007 start date. Noted: All modules are currently in validation, and all delivery is by UW staff. Noted: The Team joined the Panel at 12.45pm. Documentation Noted: The Panel noted that various pieces of the documentation have appeared at different

times and that there was a need to receive one bound set of documentation Noted: The Panel noted that the following documentation was missing:

• draft memorandum of co-operation between the partners outlining duties of each and thus no annexes detailing inter alia the financial arrangements.

• contextualised PST and the individual MSTs relevant to block delivery in Singapore.

• contextualised Pathway Guide,; the version provided, is still addressed only to the UoW home-based audience.

• CVs for local staff • statement of Novation staff appointment and induction procedures • financial statement for Novation (required as it is a private institution)

Noted: The Team tabled the local staff CVs for circulation by the Officer. Noted: The Panel noted a discrepancy between the modules listed in the PST and that listed

in the submission document. The Team confirmed that modules LI3004 (30 credits) and LI3018 and LI3015 (both 15 credits) will be running in Singapore.

Noted: The Panel noted a lack of consistency in terminology between the Novation programme being a prescribed programme, or one with electives and core options. The Team confirmed there would be 120 credits at level 3 in a prescribed, core programme.


Noted: The Team reported that those modules that were elective in the home programme, were selected to be core in the Novation programme based on the criteria of being the most appropriate to the award, reflecting the sports management market and what best fits Novation.

Noted: The Team reported that the external adviser had recommended a module that reflected the changing face of the sports industry.

Noted: With reference to the Pathway Guide, the Team reported that it had been awaiting the circulation of the revised template, which had now arrived in SSPAL.

Noted: The Team will provide the missing documentation. Delivery format for the programme Noted: The Panel noted omissions and a lack of clarity in the delivery format for the

programme, and asked the Team to describe the delivery format in Novation. Noted: The Team reported that there would be four blocks of one week per annum and these

would be delivered in three-hour evening sessions Monday – Friday, with two three-hour sessions on a Saturday, with the potential for a session on a Saturday evening. Overall, there would be ten-twelve sessions per block. The blocks would be delivered by UW staff.

Noted: The Team aimed to deliver 30 credits per block. However, it acknowledged there was still consideration on the most appropriate way to deliver two15-credit modules in one block.

Noted: There would be a period of three-four months between each block, during which students would be supported by the Team via email.

Noted: The Panel asked the Team to equate the overseas delivery and the home delivery in terms of hours, and asked the Team to provide a model of how the delivery hours are made up in terms of preparation, contact, delivery and reflection. The Team was asked to provide an overview and timespan for each module on a delivery schedule. The delivery schedule must also be reflected in the pathway guide. The Team should also include a lifecycle of at least one 15-credit and one 30-credit module including dates for development, delivery, feedback, Staff-Student Liaison Committee meetings, induction of local tutors; schedule for tutorial support; assessment deadlines; examinations; subject boards, and resit boards and opportunities.

Noted: The Panel raised a serious concern over equality of time/ treatment/ intellectual development between those cohorts starting with the project, indeed 2 x 30 credit modules, and the other cohorts who start with 2 x 15 credit modules. The Team agreed that this required further consideration.

Noted: The Team reported that it aimed to give each student a thirty-minute dissertation tutorial on each visit.

ASSESSMENT Noted: The Panel noted that the practicalities of the assessment regime for the modules

delivered in Singapore are not explained clearly either in the MSTs or elsewhere. Noted: The Team reported that there are no examinations – all of the assessment is by course

work. Noted: The modules go to the UW Subject Board. Noted: The Panel asked the Team to comment on the procedures to be followed in the event

of academic misconduct by students. Noted: The Team reported that the award follows UW regulations, but agreed that Novation

would need to receive staff development in UW regulations over time. The Team has agreed a protocol whereby any student demonstrating academic misconduct will receive guidance in the first instance, but any further instances would be subject to the full UW academic misconduct procedures. The infrastructure for this is in place.

Noted: Dr Latham advised the Team of a SCIT model in IDM whereby there is a formative assessment of simulated project work, following which students would be advised if they would have been subject to academic misconduct procedures if it had been a “real” assessment.


STUDENT SUPPORT Noted: The Panel sought clarification on arrangements for student support. It required

clarity on how this will be delivered and by whom within Novation as well as by SSPAL staff both whilst in Singapore and in the UK.

Noted: The Team reported student support would be provided by the module leader and personal tutor. The SSPAL tutor delivering the first module to a cohort will be nominated personal tutor.

Noted: The Team noted that Novation staff are rarely available during the day – the majority of them work part-time in the evening.

Noted: The Team acknowledged there was a gap when UW staff were not there at which time pastoral support would be provided by Novation.

Noted: Students will be encouraged to use pebblepad to provide peer support. Noted: The Panel requires the Team to confirm pastoral support arrangements with

Novation. Student Feedback Noted: Clarification was sought by the Panel on how student feedback would be obtained. Noted: The Team planned to include a staff-student forum on each of the four visits per

annum. Noted: The Panel had noted the Novation feedback forms during their January resource visit;

these are used in addition to the UW Module Evaluation Questionnaires. Noted: The Panel asked the Team to provide details on the formalised arrangements for

student feedback. Staff Development Noted: The Panel asked the Team to provide details on staff development for Novation staff. Noted: The team responded that they could not see what development they could provide for

Novation staff as Novation staff would not be able to come to UW. Noted: However it was noted that UW would need to provide Induction support to local

tutors who would support the modules during the October block. The Team would also need to train administrative staff in the access of evision and UW learning resources.

Noted: The Team considered inviting Novation staff to register for a degree at UW whereby the fees would be paid.

Noted: Team to give consideration to staff development for Novation staff and if necessary include any arrangements in the memorandum of co-operation.

Noted: The Panel asked the Team to provide details on the arrangements for staff development.

Programme Committee Noted: The Panel sought clarification on the Team’s intention to have a programme

committee, which would review the academic health of the programme as well as operational issues on a regular basis.

Noted: The Team noted that a programme committee is good practice, but felt that initially there could be a risk of duplication of roles, when student numbers were small. The Team indicated that they may give consideration to setting up a programme committee after a couple of years when there would be substantially greater student numbers.

Noted: The Panel felt that it would be good practice to have a programme committee in Singapore, constituting Steve Gelder (SSPAL), Ronnie Lee (Novation) and student representatives. The Panel proposed that this committee could replace one of the four student forums.

Annual Monitoring Noted: The Panel required additional information on annual monitoring, and felt it would be

good practice to have separate annual monitoring, which would look at the academic health at subject and award level, the collaborative partnership and the involvement of the overseas partner.

Noted: However, the Team did not wish for there to be separate annual monitoring, and prefer to look at he awards in their totality.


Noted: The Panel agreed to refer this issue to the external adviser. Currency of Booklists Noted: The Panel raised the concern shown by the external regarding reading lists on the

modules, either not up-to-date or in varying numbers of key or recommended texts. Noted: The Team acknowledged that the reading list had developed incrementally and did

need require “weeding-out” and systematically updating. Noted: The Team stated that it intended to identify one e-text for each module. Noted: Students will have access to the library at Novation, and potentially to the National

Library. Noted: The Panel required the Team to update the reading lists and identify key texts. Noted: The Panel required the Team to identify the texts that would be required in

Novation, and this list would need to be checked in Novation regularly. Entry requirements Noted: The Panel was concerned that no mention was made of English language

requirements in the documentation. Noted: The external has some concerns over whether IELTS 5.5. plus the Novation diploma

is an IELTS 6.0 equivalent. Noted: The Panel required the Team to put a statement on both the submission document and

the Memorandum of Co-operation that the entry requirement is for IELTS6.0 or equivalent, or IELTS 5.5 and the Novation Diploma.

Noted: The Team will have to monitor this issue carefully, as over time it is anticipated that there will be more international students (from outside Singapore) applying for the award.

Marketing and Applications Noted: The Panel noted that all responsibility for decisions on how, where, when and at what

cost the programme is to be marketed have been left with Novation. There is no mechanism for SSPAL to monitor and approve this process.

Noted: The Team confirmed that Novation is responsible for marketing and recruitment. Noted: Novation is advertising the award as “subject to validation” and has already enrolled

three students. Noted: The Panel advised the Team that UW needs to monitor the marketing materials, and

advise them that there should be a clause to this effect in the MoC. Noted: The Panel sought clarification on the procedure to deal with applications as

Novation, SSPAL and SEARO all have roles to play which could overlap. Noted: Students apply directly to Novation. Novation submits selected applications to the S

E Asia Regional Officer (SEARO - Bee Bee Gan). Applications are then forwarded to UW, where they are processed as international applicants.

Equal opportunities and Disability issues

Noted: The Panel and External noted that there has been little thought regarding the

recruitment of female students or students with disabilities of whatever kind. Noted: The Panel proposed that a statement as to how this might be promoted by Novation /

SSPAL would be helpful, as would one referring to Novation adhering as far as possible to UoW approaches to equal opportunities.

Noted: The Team will check the status of the Novation equal opportunities and disability policies.

Graduation ceremonies Noted: The Panel concurred with the external’s comment that the UoW needs some input in

the arrangements for graduation ceremonies in Singapore, rather than the present suggestion to leave it all to Novation.


Noted: The graduation ceremony is likely to be held in October as part of the block delivery and Singapore roadshow.

Noted: The Team needs to include a reference to UW involvement in the graduation ceremonies in the MoC.

Noted: The MoC should also include full financial details. Conclusion Noted: A full set of revised documentation in line with today’s discussion must be submitted

to the Panel by 30th March 2007. The Panel will comment on the documentation by correspondence. It is anticipated that the validation will be closed out by the end of May, to enable delivery in July.


Appendix 5 – Overseas Standing Panel comments on the Revised Documentation 30th April 2007

NOVATION COMMENTS – 03 MAY 2007 The key missing components and responses to the Panel’s comments have now been supplied and whilst there continue to be some reservations on a few issues, the Panel believes the major requirements for the validation have now been met. 1) The Memorandum of Co-operation has been provided, including the financial annex. 2) Comments on English language entry requirements have now been supplied in all the relevant places. 3) A statement by Novation on their policy for admission of students with disabilities (of whatever form) has been received. 4) MSTs have been rewritten to reflect the Singapore delivery and provide a clearer statement on hours of delivery / self study. 5) The PST has been amended as requested. 6) Comments have been included on staff development for Novation tutors and clarification given on those particular modules in which eventual teaching delivery by them may take place. 7) Some efforts have been undertaken to streamline numbers of texts designated as “key” within the MSTs 8) The outline calendar for dates of delivery and assessment has been improved, particularly in relation to student induction and Novation staff development. 9) Personal tutor arrangements are now clarified more. 10) Missing areas have been added to the Pathway Guide. Some problems do remain however:

a) MOC:

(i) Definition of term “academic year” given as September to August is confusing in terms of the way Novation delivery is arranged.

(ii) 8.2. Conferment: there is a contradiction here in stating that UoW will have sole responsibility for the organisation of the award ceremony as it has been agreed elsewhere that this will be jointly arranged with Novation

(iii) Appendix 3 Financial: under Section 1- Tuition fees: Paragraph 2 makes confusing references to “accommodation charges” which are surely irrelevant here.

(iv) There is no statement that Novation will buy all the relevant designated key texts as is claimed elsewhere

b) AAR 1314 and Main Validation Document:

(i) The AAR 1314 as appended is just one side and clearly insufficient and (as noted above) does not include pieces of information promised in the validation document.

(ii) Thus, Appendix 2 merely notes validation of the programme but makes no reference to a “full discussion of the nature of the curriculum” as promised at the start of Section 5 “Curricula etc.” in the Validation Proposal.

(iii) SSPAL Staff CVs are also missing (promised in Section 6 “Resources”)


c) PST:

(i) Paragraph 9 “Employment and further training opportunities” makes no reference to Singapore

(ii) The number 1 is missing after”Level” in Section 8, second bullet point

d) MSTs:

(i) SR3024 fails to list the learning outcome reference numbers e.g. A1, B2 etc. All other modules have these.

(ii) LI3004 no statement on key resources (i.e. rationale for such a long list)

e) Pathway Guide:

(i) Novation staff contact details are still missing in the Section “Staff involved with…”

(ii) The Pathway Guide is in a poor state with no obvious cover page or clear contents page and is incomplete in terms of glossary of terms etc. in comparison with the earlier version

f) Other points:

(i) Only one Award Board is mentioned - in June each year. Does this mean that students finishing in July or September/ October will have to wait for almost a year for their degrees to be confirmed?

(ii) CVs of Novation staff are provided but there is no indication of which members of their staff will be involved in specific modules, whether providing tutorial support or eventual teaching


Appendix 6 – Team Response to the Panel’s Request for Further Clarification 17th May 2007 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VALIDATION OF DELIVERY OF THE B.A. IN

SPORTS MANAGEMENT WITH NOVATION BUSINESS SCHOOL SINGAPORE

The following considerations were agreed by the panel team after, and in the light of, discussions at the Overseas Standing Panel meeting on Thursday 17th May. Note was taken of John Pymm’s concerns about less important issues which appeared to be mixed in with more serious ones. It was agreed that this arose unfortunately because the document circulated at the OSP was not a finalised formal report, but more an unedited list of points for internal discussion. The following points in this document therefore are all considered critically important and, it is believed, will help the internal SSPAL team themselves in addressing key issues before the start date which if unaddressed could prove to be quite problematic.

1) The panel still needs to see a clear delivery schedule (e.g. week by week explanation) of how one individual module will be taught/studied at Novation. The panel has asked for such a scheme on various occasions and this has not been received to date. This schedule will show how the module delivery differs from UK practice, also how much the inputs from members of staff of each side will take place and when.

2) An explanation of the timings of the relevant subject/award boards (which at present appear

only to be once a year) and also timings of Staff Student Liaison Committee meetings to be held at Novation.

3) Provision of a completed course guide for the Novation students

4) A matrix to explain the roles of staff and which of them will be responsible, in UoW and

Novation, for both academic and administrative delivery of the programme e.g. who will liaise directly with whom. At present, for example, a list of Novation staff is provided but there is no specification of who will be involved in which module.

5) An explanation of the preparatory measures already undertaken or to be undertaken before the

start date to give “pre-induction” for both SSPAL staff (many of whom will not have been to Novation before) and Novation staff and students.

Sent to Team on 21st May, with request for response by 25th May 2007.


Appendix 7 – Response to External Adviser 18th October 2007 Dr Beech’s report (24.2.07) updated with Overseas Standing Panel Response ( in italics)

NOTES BY DR JOHN BEECH, COVENTRY UNIVERSITY, ON BA (HONS.) SPORT MANAGEMENT – NOVATION, SINGAPORE

Apologies that the report is supplied in note format, but my travel circumstances dictate that I have to produce responses within a day and a half of receipt of the documents. Comments

1. The lack of female applicants is of course a matter for concern, but predictable.

Response: The School Quality & Enhancement Committee (SQEC) will be asked to monitor female applicants via Annual Monitoring.

2. Need to follow up on the provision of (Novation) staff CVs.

Response: CVs attached. 3. There seems to be a lack of any detail on opportunities for staff development at Novation, or

indeed any detail on whether these opportunities have been taken up.

Response: Staff development discussed with the Team and closed out to satisfaction of the Panel.

4. Personally I would be against a separate award board – this seems a recipe for non-convergence of quality standards. Doesn’t this actually contradict the statement in para 8a (p.10) of the approval document that “The pathway will not use any quality management and enhancement systems that are additional to the standard University/School mechanisms” (my emphasis)?

Response: The Panel's concerns on the issue of the award board were assuaged by knowing that two boards would be used per annum and thus completing students would not be held up too long in accessing their results. We therefore do not wish to insist on the separate award board.

5. The flying faculty model seems rigorous.

6. I have not been provided with any CVs of Novation staff. Those of the named Novation staff would have been helpful.

Response: CVs attached. 7. For someone outwith the University of Wolverhampton, there was a sea of esoteric acronyms

to wade through.

Response: Noted; the Panel will seek to address this problem in future validations.

Queries 4. Is the assumption that IELTS 5.5 plus completion of the Advanced Diploma is the equivalent

of IELTS 6.0 valid? Is the IELTS score system actually that good an indicator of meeting the required level of language skills (it is an average of three of the four core language skills)?

Response: The Head of the International Language Centre was involved in the validation and is satisfied with the entry requirements proposed. They will however be monitored. The Memorandum of Co-operation (MoC) states:


Students admitted to undergraduate programmes of the University who have not studied in English in Singapore, must possess AT LEAST the minimum English language entrance requirements. Students must satisfy one of the following criteria:

- A score of 6.0 on IELTS - A score of 550 on TOEFL (or 213 in the computerised version) - A pass (A,B,C) in the Cambridge Advanced English examination (CAE) - A pass in the Cambridge Proficiency Examination (CPE) - 6 years of successful full-time study and assessment at secondary/tertiary level entirely

through the medium of English - Hold an equivalent qualification/Certificate - A score of 6.0 in the University of Wolverhampton internal English language test (N.B..This test can only be administered to students who have completed a period of English language study of at least four weeks at the University.) The partner is required to maintain a record of English language ability at admission, noting which documents and by what means competence was demonstrated.

Will the purchase of book stock be monitored? How?

Response: The School Quality & Enhancement Committee (SQEC) will be asked to monitor purchase of bookstock via Annual Monitoring.

5. “Final authority for student admissions rests with the University of Wolverhampton but this is delegated to NBS for standard applicants” (Approval doc, p6) What does this mean in practice? What constitutes ‘standard’ and how exactly will non-standard applicants be handled?

Response: This issue was discussed with the Team and closed out to the satisfaction of the Panel.

Concerns

6. Need for clarification of main Novation contact person and status of Novation.

Response: Closed to the satisfaction of the Panel.

7. Need for an Equal Opportunities policy at Novation. (or have these been sorted during the January Overseas Standing Panel visit?)

Response: Novation Equal Opportunities policy received by Panel.

8. Lack of any control over, or at least information on, the marketing of the course.

Response: Clause on marketing and publicity included in the MoC.

8. I find the IELTS level of 6.5 for staff disappointingly low (and IELTS arguably inappropriate in any case).

Response: This is the UW standard requirement for local tutors overseas.

9. I feel Wolverhampton should have some say in the arrangements for graduation ceremonies (p.11 of the approval document). Graduation is, after all, the highest profile the University has in the local environment, and presumably will normally involve some members of Wolverhampton staff.

Response: UW role in graduation ceremonies confirmed in MOC.


Identification of Good Practice

• Good provision of documentation to Novation.

• Dual appointment of course supervisor and administrator.

• Good use of alternative facilities for students, e.g. local libraries.

• External examiner to visit Singapore.

Response: Noted; these points will be highlighted in the Academic Approval Record (AAR) The Details of the Approval Document Part A Pathway Definition Form p.1. Surely ‘other’ for location of delivery needs to be ticked!

Response: Revised PST received and amended. Next page: Source of funding – HEFCE ??

Response: Revised PST received and amended. There are some inevitable documentation problems with the ‘translation’ of ‘home’ courses to overseas locations e.g. para 9 of the Pathway Specification reads rather oddly with its references to Wakefield, Kent and Bisham Abbey. I suspect though that is an insoluble problem. In the same section, para 10.2, there is reference to the use of NUDIST and SPSS – is this actually possible at Novation (or really necessary, to be honest)?

Response: Revised PST received and amended. The module specifications raise some issues, specifically with respect to the reading lists:

They give the impression of having been regularly updated by addition, but without deletion. Some texts are more than ten years old and not really relevant (e.g. in Strategic Management for the Leisure and Lifestyles Industries, recommended resources include Eaton’s 1996 European Leisure Businesses).There are major inconsistencies across the modules of quantity of both ‘key texts’ and ‘recommended texts’. Some lists are not even alpha-sorted – looks bad!I must confess ignorance of how these documents are used at Wolverhampton. If this includes the basis for library purchases, Novation will be, arguably, badly misled. If it includes the role of student’s reading list, the students will be, arguably, badly misled

Response: Revised MSTs received with updated booklists.

In Section 7 of the Pathway Guide, is the discussion of work placement opportunities appropriate? If Novation students receive a copy of the Pathway Guide, they may well be confused. In a similar vein, do Section 11 Student Problem Solver and Appendix 1 Guidance to Students apply, or is a Novation variant needed?

Response: Revised, contextualised Pathway Guide received.

Notwithstanding the various points made above, the course has a good feel to it and the proposed Novation collaboration bodes well. The involvement of CASETRUST and the Singapore Ministry of Education provide important quality ‘kite-marks’. Mutatis mutandis, I would clearly support the proposed course of action.


Appendix 8 – Extracts of Overseas Standing Panel Meetings Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 5th October 2006: Item 449 Validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up (Novation Business School,

Singapore / SCIT) Validation of BA (Hons) Tourism Management top-up (INTI, Malaysia / SCIT) Noted: It is understood that the proposal plans for both awards will be presented to ADP on

30th October 2006 and could come to OSP on 9th November 2006. Both awards have a September 2007 start date.

Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 9th November 2006: Item 461 BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up (SSPAL / Novation, Singapore) Noted: Approved by ADP at the 30th November 2006 meeting. Noted: A working party chaired by Mr Mike Townsend, supported by Mr P Harris and Dr A

Latham was appointed. Action: Officer to schedule the initial planning meeting before Christmas. Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 18th January 2007: 481. The Notes of the Initial Planning Meeting for the proposed in-country delivery

of BA (Hons) Sports Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore.

Received: The Notes of the Initial Planning Meeting for the proposed in-country delivery of BA (Hons) Sports Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore (Paper 486).

Noted: The Panel noted that there was a lack of clarity regarding delivery and use of local tutors; greater clarification is required regarding the methods of teaching.

Action: The Chair of the validation working party will investigate the model of delivery. Noted: The Panel was concerned that a cohort of fewer than fifteen students per year may

not bring in sufficient income to cover development costs. Action: The Memorandum of Co-operation should include a clause to ensure a

minimum payment, based on a minimum number of students. Noted: Discussion had identified the partner (Novation) as being a private organisation, and

therefore financial statements would need to be received. The Head of the International Office reported that it can be difficult to access financial statements in certain countries, and as, in many cases, the Panel should be mindful of the cultural differences.

Action: Officer to check the status of the Vetting Process prepared by QASD for the Deputy VC, and if approved, forward the paper to Mr Townsend and the Panel.

Action: Officer to ascertain from Bee Bee Gan (SEARO) whether it is possible to obtain financial information in her area.

Noted: Dr Brown reported that previously, UWBS has obtained references using the UW banks to undertake research.

Action: Officer to discuss the need for a policy on obtaining financial statements in QASD / International Office.

Noted: There are no links between UWBS and Novation. Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 8th MARCH 2007, item 505-506: 505 BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore

(SSPAL) Received: The Officer tabled draft notes of the validation meeting between OSP and SSPAL, on

5th March 2007 (Paper 505) Noted: The validating panel was aware that the full documentation was not available to them

at the time of the validation meeting. The Panel and Team discussed a number of issues during the meeting, and the Team was provided with full guidance on the revisions to the documentation required.

Noted: Clarification was required on the mode of delivery, particularly in terms of the 15 and 30credit modules, the timing and experience of cohorts, a revised reading list.

Noted: The Team is to provide the revised documentation, including MoC, PST and MSTs by 30th March.

Noted: The partner requires a July 2007 start date.


505a. OSP resource visit to Novation Received: The Officer tabled the notes of the OSP resource visit to Novation (17th January

2007 - Paper 505a) Noted: Mr John Pymm (SSPAL) noted that the Team accepted the Panel’s comments, and

assured the Panel that all publicity for the top-up in Novation was clearly marked “to be validated”.

Noted: The Chair stressed that in principle, there should be no advertising of overseas programmes until the OSP gave permission.

Discussed: The Panel considered a proposal that such issues should be considered in a risk-based framework; if a validating panel has few concerns in terms of the quality and validation, then teams should be allowed to recruit.

Action: Chair to refer the issue of advertising back to the Head of QASD. Noted: The Panel noted that it was the documentation and not the proposal (beyond delivery

and quality assurance mechanisms) that required further clarificat The External Adviser’s Report on the Novation Proposal. Received: The External Adviser’s report on the Novation proposal (Paper 506). Noted: The External adviser had not visited Novation, and was unable to attend the

validation meeting, although his comments were received at the validation meeting. Noted: The External identified the problem of book lists on pre-validated modules showing

outdated or an excessive number of texts. Action: OSP to refer the issue of booklists to UQC. Discussed: The Panel noted that this issue could potentially be addressed by only considering the

module guide, however the MSTs are required to provide detailed learning outcomes and pre-requisites. Currently, there are no plans to downsize the MST.

The Panel agreed that the student-facing documentation was most important. The Panel noted there was a growing acceleration in the time between ADP approval

and a new programme start date, and that necessitates a faster turn-around time. Particularly in these cases, the Panel should receive all student documentation including the module guides (and not MSTs) for all the modules the first cohort will be studying at the start date.

In addition, the Panel should be provided with a list of resources for the whole delivery, which can be checked.

In the MST for new overseas provision, the assessment and programme outcomes must remain identical to that for home delivery; however the reading list and content can be updated and made appropriate to the context.

Noted: The Learning Centre representative (Dr John Rule) reported that it was difficult for library services to organise the ordering, processing, and stocking of the reading lists in a very short timescale.

Noted: The Chair advised that validating Chairs looked at their specific proposals and made a professional judgement based on the discussion at the initial planning meeting. A new award would require a new PST, and all MSTs would normally be required to see how the programme fits together. However, the Panel was not definitive, and sought to increase flexibility.

Extract of Overseas Standing Panel 19th April 2007 Item 530

505a advertising at Novation Noted: The Chair reported that advice had been received from the Head of QASD to the

effect that colleagues could advertise provision once the proposal plan had been submitted to ADP, providing all advertising and publicity was explicitly marked as “subject to validation”. However, where there was perceived to be a high-level of risk, teams should be advised not to advertise until OSP was satisfied that the provision would be validated.

506 booklists at Novation Action: Issue of booklists to be referred back to the Chair of the validation panel, Mr M

Townsend.


Item 532 BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore (SSPAL) Update on the validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore (SSPAL)

Received: An update on the validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation Business School, Singapore (SSPAL) (Paper 532; to be lead by Mr M Townsend)

Noted: Mr Townsend reported that further comments had been received from another member of the validation panel.

Noted: The Panel did not feel that they could validate the proposal at this stage. Noted: Mr Townsend reported that following the 5th March 2007 validation meeting, the

Panel had identified a number of areas requiring further clarification or documentation, and the Team had been asked to provide revised documentation by 30th March. However this documentation was not found to be satisfactory, no MoC had been received, and documents had not been contextualised. Clarification on the differential delivery for 15 and 30 credit modules had not been received.

Noted: The OSP agreed that the lack of documentation suggests that the proposal was not fully planned, and that the July 2007 start date looks premature.

Noted: It is the school’s responsibility to check the quality and coverage of the submission documentation, and not that of the OSP.

Action: Chair of OSP to send a memorandum to the Dean of SSPAL requiring a delay in the start date to October 2007. A revised set of documentation is to be sent to the Panel by 25th May 2007. This documentation must address all the Panel’s issues in full for the October 2007 start date.

Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 17th May 2007: 562. An update on the validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at

Novation Business School, Singapore (SSPAL) Received: An update on the validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation

Business School, Singapore (SSPAL) (Paper 562; lead by Mr M Townsend). Noted: At the OSP meeting on 19th April, it was proposed that the Novation start date should

be delayed from July to September. However, the Team provided a third revision of the documentation on 30th April. It was noted that a number of missing areas had now been provided. However, Paper 562 lists those areas where concerns remain.

Noted: The two main concerns are around the hours of contact for the 15 and 30 credit modules, and the frequency of award boards.

Action: The Novation validation panel will meet after this OSP meeting, to discuss how the validation should proceed.

Discussed: Mr J Pymm reported that the Team was disappointed that the Panel had revisited the details of a programme already in validation in the UK. However, the Panel agreed that in such cases it was often necessary for MSTs to be rewritten to reflect the local context and block delivery. Student-facing documentation should be checked to ensure it is appropriate.

Whilst the Panel accepts a given award already in validation, there are caveats regarding the design and delivery of block delivery, administrative contacts and responsibility and support for students (including documentation).

Noted: The Panel acknowledged the importance of communication between the Panel and the Team to be clear on expectations of the documentation.

Extract of the Overseas Standing Panel Meeting of the 28th June 2007: 589. Validation of BA (Hons) Sport Management top-up at Novation Business School Noted: The validation working party met on 17th May. The Team has now addressed the key

issues. There are two remaining concerns on which the Team will be asked to report back to OSP after the first year (July 2008): i) Novation has named staff who will provide student support, but the division

of responsibilities is not clear; in the first year the SQEC must review support.

ii) SQEC to also review the induction points and sequencing of modules. Action: Officer to complete the AAR with these two points.


Appendix 9 – Action Checklist Action Checklist Action Responsibility Status Officer to confirm validation period of home delivery Officer To 2008-09 Team to prepare a response to external adviser’s report Team Closed. Officer to check if AAR 1314 has been approved Officer Approved. Revised documentation to include the following: 1. draft memorandum of co-operation between the partners outlining duties of each and annexes detailing inter alia the financial arrangements. 2. Contextualised PST showing the correct set of modules 3. Individual MSTs relevant to block delivery in Singapore. 4. Contextualised Pathway Guide, including full delivery

schedule 5. CVs for local staff 6. statement of Novation staff appointment and induction

procedures 7. financial statement for Novation (required as it is a private

institution)

Team CVs tabled on the day. Revised documentation received: MoC PST MSTs Financial status and staff appointment approved.

Officer to circulate local staff CVs Officer Circulated to Panel.

The Panel asked the Team to equate the overseas delivery and the home delivery in terms of hours, and asked the Team to provide a model of how the delivery hours are made up in terms of preparation, contact, delivery and reflection, and support by Novation local tutors.

Team Closed

The Team was asked to provide an overview and timespan for each module on a delivery schedule. The delivery schedule must also be reflected in the pathway guide.

Team Closed

The Team should also include a lifecycle of at least one module including dates for development, delivery, feedback, Staff-Student Liaison Committee meetings, induction of local tutors; schedule for tutorial support; assessment deadlines; examinations; subject boards, and resit boards and opportunities.

Team Closed

Team to provide start and end dates for each module and cohort.

Team Closed

Clarify the distinction in delivery between 15- and 30-credit modules

Team Closed

Clarification on which subject boards, at what times, will consider the Novation students’ modules.

Team Closed

Clarification on opportunities for retrieval. Team Closed Overt consideration should be given as to how teaching should be adapted both to block delivery and distance learning support, including ways to foster independent learning.

Team Closed

nel require the Team to confirm pastoral support arrangements with Novation.

Team Closed

The Panel asked the Team to provide details on the formalised arrangements for student feedback

Team Closed

The Panel asked the Team to provide details on the Arrangements for staff development.

Team Closed

The Team to provide clarification on the arrangement for a Programme Committee

Team Closed

The Panel agreed to refer the issue of annual monitoring to the external adviser

Panel / EA Comments welcomed.

The Panel required the Team to update the reading lists and Identify key texts.

Team Closed


The Panel required the Team to identify the texts that would be required in Novation, and mechanism for checking this in Novation regularly.

Team Action in AAR

Panel to identify if a visit by the External Adviser to Novation is required.

Panel No. Closed.

The Panel required the Team to put a statement on both the submission document and the Memorandum of Co-operation that the entry requirement is for IELTS6.0 or equivalent, or IELTS 5.5 and the Novation Diploma.

Team Closed

The Panel advised the Team that UW needs to monitor the marketing materials, and advised them that there should be a clause to this effect in the MoC.

Team Closed.

Officer to check the process for “subject to validation” marketing, and the status of the three enrolled students.

Officer Closed.

The Panel proposed that a statement as to how equal opportunities might be promoted by Novation / SSPAL would be helpful, as would one referring to Novation adhering as far as possible to UoW approaches to equal opportunities.

Team Closed

The Team will check the status of the Novation equal opportunities and disability policies

Team Policy received. Closed.

The Team needs to include a reference to UW involvement in The graduation ceremonies in the MoC.

Team Closed.

The MoC should also include full financial details. Team Closed. Dr A Latham is visiting Singapore 26th March, and can collect hard copies of documentation from Novation

Team / A Latham

Closed.

Confirm exact role of the external examiner and whether this person is separately selected just for this programme or would be the same person as for the UK iteration.

Team Closed

The Panel would like to see the creation of an award board specific for this Award and an explanation of when this would meet.

Team Closed

Detailed information to be provided of Lincoln University’s English programme for preparing non-Singaporean students for entry to Novation diplomas.

Team Confirm with Head of ILC

Ongoing monitoring will be required via an annual monitoring system of the undertakings to which Novation has Committed itself.

AAR Action in AAR

Novation has named staff who will provide student support, but the division of responsibilities is not clear; in the first year the SQEC must review support.

AAR Action in AAR Feedback to OSP in July 2008

SQEC to also review the induction points and sequencing of modules

AAR Action in AAR Feedback to OSP in July 2008

Officer to check the status of the Vetting Process prepared by QASD for the Deputy VC, and if approved, forward the paper to Mr Townsend and the Panel.

Officer Report on vetting process received at OSP 11.10.07

Officer to ascertain from Bee Bee Gan (SEARO) whether it is possible to obtain financial information in her area.

Officer SEARO confirmed this is a sensitive issue and can take time.

Officer to discuss the need for a policy on obtaining financial statements in QASD / International Office.

Officer Resolved in new vetting arrangements (PASC)

Chair to refer the issue of advertising back to the Head of QASD.

Chair Can be advertised as “subject to


validation”. OSP to refer the issue of booklists to UQC. Issue of booklists to be referred back to the Chair of the validation panel, Mr M Townsend

Officer Resolved by receipt of revised booklists.

Chair of OSP to send a memorandum to the Dean of SSPAL requiring a delay in the start date to October 2007. A revised set of documentation is to be sent to the Panel by 25th May 2007. This documentation must address all the Panel’s issues in full for the October 2007 start date.

Chair Closed by Team Response. July start date approved.

The Novation validation panel will meet after this OSP meeting, to discuss how the validation should proceed.

Validation Panel Closed by Team Response. July start date approved

.

Extract of UQEC Academic Approval Sub-Committee 19th November 2007 "AARSC/07/23 To receive for discussion the following AARs: 23.1 Validation of the collaborative provision of BA (Hons) Sports

Management Top-Up for the School of Sports, Performing Arts and Leisure, with Novation Business School, Singapore. AAR Ref 1074

The Sub Committee agreed that due process had been followed and the

documentation confirmed that it had been a rigorous process. Although the external advisor was not present for the validation, a report had been received and all issues raised had been adequately closed.

It was noted that the Panel would review the first year of annual monitoring to

ensure that was the most appropriate arrangement. The validation highlighted the possibility of adapting home validated modules

for overseas delivery as an issue that had Institutional implications. Agreed Approved

Documents

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE OVERSEAS STANDING … · The next review of collaborative provision of BA (Hons) Sports Management Top-Up for the School of Sports, Performing Arts and