University of Huddersfield
Institutional Audit

DECEMBER 2004

RG 121 05/05

Findings

259 An institutional audit of the University of Huddersfield (the University) was undertaken during the week 6 to 10 December 2004. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility as a UK degree-awarding body. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals and Universities UK, five discipline audit trails (DATs) were selected for scrutiny. This section of the report of the audit summarises the findings of the audit. It concludes by identifying features of good practice that emerged from the audit, and recommendations to the University for enhancing current practice.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes

Programme approval, monitoring, and review

260 The University's procedures for programme approval allow for new programmes and pathways to be validated at school level where the provision carries fewer than 100 credits at undergraduate level, or 60 or fewer at M-level. New modules which are intended to form part of an existing pathway will usually be validated at school level. Major developments (including new modules intended for use in a new pathway) are subject to validation at University level. Additionally, the University's Teaching and Learning Committee (UTLC) may agree to a school-level validation with the participation of a UTLC nominee. The decision on which form of validation should be followed is usually made after consultation by the Registry with the Pro-Vice Chancellor (PVC) Academic Affairs (AA). For all validation events, there are clear specifications for the supporting documentation. In the case of new programme or pathway proposals, a statement of resources, authorised by the relevant Dean, is required. For all validations, the university expects the proposers to be able to show that the proposal is consistent with the advice of the Academic Infrastructure and that it complies with University Regulations and all relevant legislation, such as the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act.

261 The University expects all university-level validation panels to include members from outside the school supporting the proposal and members who are external to the University. For such validation events, the audit team was able to establish that this was invariably the case. For school-level validation events, however, the University does not expect the participation of peers from outside the University, other than when the provision is linked to a professional, statutory or regulatory body. It would now be desirable for the University to clarify its regulations to ensure that its requirements with respect to the participation of external peers in all validations and approvals is unambiguously stated, and their presence clearly recorded.

262 Reports of school-level validation events are sent to the relevant school board for approval before they are submitted to the chair of the panel for approval. The Dean of the school is responsible for ensuring that any recommendations and/or conditions have been met before students can be admitted to the programme or pathway. From the wide sample of University and school-level validations it saw, and from its discussions with members of the University, the audit team came to the view that, with the reservation noted above, the University's validation and approval procedures were sound.

263 The University's procedures for the annual evaluation of its pathways and programmes provide for each pathway or programme committee to gather evidence of developments throughout the session, drawing on student evaluations; minutes of staff-student liaison committees (SSLCs) (now referred to as student panels); progression and completion data, drawn from the University's Applicant and Student Information System (ASIS); and external examiners' reports together with the committee's responses. The University requires programme and pathway committees to compile their annual evaluation reports in a standard form following headings which are set out in its quality manual: 'Quality Assurance Procedures for Taught Programmes' (usually referred to as the 'Green Book').

264 After consideration by the pathway or programme committee, annual evaluation reports are scrutinised by a school-level annual evaluation panel, the membership of which includes a member of staff from outside the school nominated by UTLC and reporting to it. Annual evaluation panels usually meet each pathway or programme committee which has submitted an annual evaluation report before compiling a synoptic, school-wide report on the annual evaluation reports for UTLC. Reports by annual evaluation panels are copied to the relevant school boards and are sent to the Annual Evaluation Sub-Committee of UTLC which checks for recurring and University-wide themes. In the course of one of the DATs it became apparent that provision leading to the awards of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) had not been brought into the scope of the University's annual evaluation arrangements and this would now be advisable. In all other respects, the audit team considered that the University's annual evaluation procedures were working well: reports produced by the programme and pathway committees are self-critical and well evidenced and show how matters raised in earlier annual evaluation reports have been tackled. The design of the University's annual evaluation procedures constitutes a feature of good practice and the manner in which annual evaluations are conducted is robust and reliable.

265 The University has adopted periodic review processes to scrutinise the work of its schools, review the work of its subject communities, and monitor and review its cross-institutional services. It has also established a thematic review process to monitor and evaluate matters with institution-wide relevance and, in some matters, can draw on the work of its University Internal Audit Consortium to check and confirm the findings of its other internal quality management and assurance processes.

266 School reviews allow the University to gain an appreciation of the strategic direction and performance of each of its schools. School reviews are conducted by panels appointed by Senate, and reporting to it, which are chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a PVC. Panel members comprise senior members of the University and senior external peers. School reviews are based on self-evaluation documents prepared by the school to a standard template, together with supporting evidence, and meetings with staff and students. Review panels report their findings to Senate through UTLC and schools are required to prepare and submit a report to UTLC on the actions they have taken in response to a review within six months of its conclusion.

267 The University's process of service review follows a broadly similar pattern to that of school review, but the membership of the panel is expected to include a senior member of another University service provider, members of teaching staff and two external members. Service review is based on a discussion document produced by the service and the programme of meetings includes discussions with members of the service, its users and there is provision for site visits and the inspection of facilities. As with School reviews, the reports of service reviews are submitted to Senate through UTLC and the service is required to provide a report to UTLC on how it has responded to the service review six months after the conclusion of the latter.

268 The University has developed an internal subject review process to assist it to evaluate the strategic direction and performance of subject areas. Internal subject review operates at school level. It is conducted by a panel which includes external peers. Subject review is based on a self-evaluation constructed using a standard template which invites reflection on the relevant curriculum area. There is provision for meetings with staff and students and the reports of the subject review panel are sent to the relevant school board and ultimately to UTLC, together with the subject area's response.

269 In addition to the periodic review processes described above, the University also operates a thematic review process through which to evaluate an institution-wide theme or area. Thematic reviews make use of existing documentation and draw on relevant supporting information such as regulations, procedures and policies relevant to the theme under review. Examples of thematic reviews which the University has conducted have included reviews of student evaluation and feedback procedures, and of external examining arrangements.

270 The samples of reports from school, service, subject and thematic reviews which the University provided in the course of the audit demonstrated that, in each case, the review processes had been thoroughly undertaken, had included external peer participants and had yielded reports which were searching and had been used to enhance the quality of the University's provision and its support arrangements. Service and thematic reviews in particular represent features of good practice in the University's quality management and assurance arrangements.

Feedback on the quality of programmes from students and other stakeholders

271 Students may provide feedback on their learning experiences through standardised questionnaires, which focus on programmes and pathways, but also allow opportunities for them to comment on modules. Students also have the opportunity to provide informal feedback through their personal tutor and through meetings of student panels. Feedback from graduates is secured through the first destination survey. Following the University's recent thematic review of student evaluation there has been a general (although not complete) shift from the collection of feedback at the module level (including through mid-module and end-of-module questionnaires) to the collection of feedback at programme and pathway level. The University's grounds for making this shift (which include seeking to encourage students to identify more closely with their programme or pathway) have merit. The student evaluation information which was formerly collected at the module level did, however, provide much useful fine-grained information for quality enhancement purposes, and the audit team urges the University to consider how, under its new feedback arrangements, it might be able to continue to gather and avail itself of such fine-grained information.

272 Despite the careful thought and hard work put into the operation of student representation and feedback arrangements by the University and by the Students' Union, some students believe that information and comments made to the University through its feedback arrangements do not lead to improvements. The evidence seen by the audit team indicates that the University regards student feedback as an important element in its quality management arrangements and that its use of student feedback leads to concrete improvements.

273 The recent thematic review of student evaluation proposed that alumni should have the opportunity to provide feedback 18 months after graduation although at the time of the audit it was not clear whether this proposal had been adopted. A variety of approaches is used to maintain contact with alumni and to use their comments in the development of the curriculum. The University seeks feedback on the accomplishments of its students from those who provide placements for them; local and other employers are invited to participate in validations and some subject areas have established industrial liaison panels.

274 Taken together, the University's arrangements provide it with useful feedback and evaluation information from its students, those who offer them placements, and their eventual employers. The evidence available to the audit team indicated that such information was used by the University to enhance its provision.

Distance-learning programmes

275 The University's quality assurance procedures for its provision delivered remotely are based on those it has developed for other forms of provision. Hence, when validating provision which is to be delivered remotely there is provision for the scrutiny of documentation relating to student learning materials; the means of delivery; the means for students to communicate with University staff, and methods of gathering feedback from students on their learning experiences. Annual evaluation for such provision conforms to the University's standard process with the addition of a section in a specially developed report template in which the specific issues arising from remote delivery must be discussed. The evaluation report is considered by the school delivering the programme or pathway at its annual evaluation meeting. The procedures the University has adopted to develop, approve and monitor its small portfolio of remotely delivered provision appeared to the audit team to be sound.

276 In addition to the provision and quality assurance measures described above the University also makes available its provision remotely (including overseas) through an established programme of Overseas Delivery of University of Programmes by University Staff. Consideration of this provision, the awards to which it leads and the associated quality assurance arrangements, will form part of the collaborative provision audit.

277 The audit team considered that the University's procedures for assuring the quality of its modules, pathways and programmes were effective. The findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its programmes.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards

278 The University regards the reports of its external examiners as a critical element in its quality assurance processes. Each programme or pathway leading to an award is required to have an external examiner appointed in conformity with the University's Regulations for Awards. The University regards its external examining arrangements as fully consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by QAA, a view with which the audit team concurs.

279 As one part of its work to improve student retention and completion, the University has adopted a new assessment strategy which provides for a carefully balanced mix of formative and summative assessments, and for 'tutor re-assessment'. The latter provides students with an early opportunity to rework and re-present work that has initially been judged unsatisfactory on the understanding that the maximum grade which can be awarded for the re-presented work is 40 per cent. Students who discussed this arrangement with members of the audit team considered that its introduction had enhanced their opportunities to use assessments to improve their performance and understanding.

280 The University's assessment and classification arrangements allow for discretion to be exercised by assessment boards in the schools but the parameters within which such discretion may be exercised could benefit from greater clarity. This would now be advisable. It might also be advisable for the future for UTLC to monitor how discretion is applied by schools in classifying awards.

281 Under the University's present assessment arrangements, pathway assessment boards (PABs) receive module marks but cannot review the marks for a range of modules in a particular subject area. It might now be appropriate and advisable for the University to consider how its present process for the confirmation of module marks by PABs might be developed, to allow them to review the marks for a range of subject modules when appropriate, and what formal reporting arrangements might be required to ensure that any changes arising from such a review of marks could be transparently recorded. At the same time, it would also be desirable for the University to take steps, throughout its assessment processes, to ensure that the fact that moderation and marking has taken place is reliably recorded.

282 The University conducted a thematic review of its external examining arrangements in March 2003 which showed that assessment and classification practices varied across the schools. Subsequently, the University introduced new arrangements under which the Dean or the chair of the relevant school teaching committee is responsible for analysing reports from the school's external examiners in order to produce a summary of their findings and recommendations. This is provided for the PVC (AA) and is expected to include comments on any recurring positive or negative matters. The University's new arrangements also clarified the responsibility of the Deans of the schools to ensure that responses have been made to external examiners on matters raised in their reports and there are arrangements for the PVC (AA) to collate and summarise the reports from the Deans in order to produce an overall summary report which is presented to UTLC. The audit team was able to read a substantial sample of reports by external examiners and to confirm that made by the examiners to the subject areas received careful consideration and (in the cases seen by the team) had received timely responses.

Progression and completion statistics

283 Since receiving a number of critical subject review reports from QAA, and a report from HEFCE that the accuracy and timeliness of its students records had been wanting in 2000, the University has devoted considerable time and effort to improving its student information systems. It has relocated its ASIS to its Planning and Information Services and a Director has been appointed to manage and develop ASIS. Following these changes, the University has conducted an internal audit which suggested that they had been effective.

284 The University measures student progression and the student experience from year to year only, and it has chosen not to monitor the extent to which students entering in a particular year complete their studies with the cohort of students with which they entered. Notwithstanding the University's cogent arguments for adopting its particular approach, it seemed likely to the audit team that cohort statistics and their analysis might make a useful contribution to the University's continuing and noteworthy work, using data and information derived from ASIS, to improve student retention and completion rates and enhance teaching and learning. Additionally, the absence of baseline cohort statistics does not make it easy for students who are thinking of applying to the University, to assess the likelihood of completing their studies, or to compare the University's progression and completion figures with those of other universities where baseline cohort statistics are more commonly available. It might now be desirable for the University to revisit the case for its particular approach to producing retention and progression statistics, and to consider the merits of some form of cohort analysis.

285 Through the reports it requested, a demonstration of the ASIS system conducted by central, school and subject staff, and discussions with staff and students, the audit team came to the view that the ASIS system was providing helpful progression and completion data to support annual evaluations and periodic reviews and that information derived from ASIS was being used by some subject areas, such as Chemistry and Music, to improve retention and identify success factors for dissemination. Such uses of ASIS appeared to the team to represent features of good practice. Additionally, the ability of personal and academic skills tutors (see below) to use data drawn from ASIS to track the progress of individual students in order to ensure that those who would benefit from assistance receive it, also seemed to the team to represent a feature of good practice.

286 The evidence available to the audit team suggests that, overall, there can be broad confidence in the University's external examining arrangements and its arrangements to collect, analyse, and use progression and completion data to safeguard academic standards and manage the quality of provision.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning

Library and information and communication technology provision

287 Library and information and communication technology provision to support teaching and learning are chiefly delivered through the University's merged Computing and Library Services. The Main Library and Computing Centre is based on the central campus and is supplemented in some areas, such as Music, by school-based learning resources.

288 Provision within the Main Centre is organised into 'subject floors' each of which aims to provide the computing facilities, electronic information and printed information relevant to the disciplines it services, and to provide specialist advice relevant to those disciplines. In addition to the Library and Computing Centre, students are able to draw on the learning resources available by means of the University's proprietary virtual learning environment (VLE). The University uses benchmark information from the Society of College National and University Libraries to benchmark its library provision against that of comparable institutions and the sector more generally.

289 The University was one of the first to introduce a VLE into its learning support arrangements and over several years its use has begun to be embedded across the schools. Students have welcomed the additional support the VLE provides, but the material available to the audit team suggested that quality control and assurance arrangements for materials made available to students through the VLE could be improved, and this would now be desirable. Overall, the Services' regular surveys of the needs of their users, the annual plans which Computing and Library Services provide to the Planning and Resources Committee, and the consideration given to learning resources in internal periodic reviews provide the University with satisfactory means to monitor the capacity of the Computing and Library Services to support learning and teaching.

Academic and personal support for students

290 As part of its mission to widen participation the University has given careful thought to its induction and learning support arrangements for students as they begin their studies. All students on entering the University participate in a personal 'skills audit' and those who would benefit from further support are assisted by dedicated academic skills tutors (ASTs) based in each of the schools. Early statistics for this newly introduced scheme show its uptake has increased sharply over the first two years of operation, suggesting that the University has identified, and is beginning to meet, a real need. The University's induction arrangements for its students, including its introduction of academic skill tutors, represent a feature of good practice.

291 Personal and pastoral support for students is provided by the University through personal tutors based in the schools and a number of centrally organised services including Student Welfare Support, Disability Support, the Careers Advisory Service, and support for International Students. The University has undertaken systematic work to develop its personal tutor arrangements, partly supported by resources from the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund, as one element in its arrangements to improve student retention and completion. Personal tutors are expected to conduct weekly meetings with each of their first-year students and to meet second-year students on at least five occasions. The students' written submission and the students who met the audit team praised the University's personal tutor arrangements and its central support services. Many of the measures taken by the University to provide academic guidance and personal support for its students appeared to the team to represent features of good practice including its personal tutor, and AST arrangements, and the attention it has paid to retention and completion matters when developing the curriculum and assessment arrangements (see above).

292 Postgraduate research students receive academic guidance and support through a supervisory team and are also allocated to a personal tutor. Students intending to progress to a PhD must first register for an MPhil and later transfer to a PhD. The arrangements for this process are based on the appraisal by at least two referees of a 'transfer report', an arrangement which the audit team considered to be working well and to be robust. The progress of postgraduate research students is monitored through an annual report which they are required to make to the research degrees committee of the school in which they are based, and which is also seen by the University's Research Committee. Research students seemed to the team to be satisfied that the learning resources available to support their research are satisfactory. Postgraduate research students who elect to teach undergraduate students must successfully complete a 'Teaching Assistant Preparation Programme' which has been accredited by the Higher Education Academy. The University's arrangements to support its postgraduate research students appeared to the team to represent a feature of good practice.

Staff development

293 The University takes the view that its teaching staff are self managing professionals, who should take responsibility for their own development. It also recognises, however, the need for managers at all levels to identify the needs of their staff and to ensure that they are met. The University provides staff development opportunities for its part-time hourly staff (for which it provides full support) has introduced a postgraduate certificate and an MA course in Professional Development (Higher Education Practice). There is scope for the units which comprise these programmes to be made more widely available to staff, and this would now be desirable.

294 Outputs from the University's appraisal scheme for its staff, and from the peer observation of teaching which operates across many schools, do not formally contribute to any strategic assessment by the University of its staff development needs. The audit team was unable to determine where or how any such strategic assessment might take place since there appeared to be no clear route through which Senate or the Council might be informed of staff development activities, and how they link to other University strategies and policies. This is surprising in view of the volume and apparent effectiveness of the staff development activities the University has undertaken to support initiatives such as the development of academic skills tutors, and its support for Teaching Awards. The University is aware that the low level of applications for the Teaching Awards (applications for which are open to teaching and support staff) signifies the need for it to improve its internal communications about staff development teaching and innovation. This is to be encouraged.

The outcomes of the discipline audit trails

Accountancy

295 The following programmes and pathways in Accountancy were included in the scope of the DAT: BA (Hons) Accountancy and Finance; BA (Hons) Accountancy and Finance (sandwich mode); MA in Accountancy and Finance; full and part-time programmes of study leading to awards of the ACCA. Programme specifications were provided for each of the programmes and pathways listed above, other than for the provision leading to the ACCA awards. Other than for the latter, the programme specifications show that the specifications for the undergraduate programmes and pathways explicitly link intended learning outcomes with those of the Subject benchmark statement for accountancy. Both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and pathways are consistent with the advice offered by The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ).

296 Hitherto, the provision which leads to ACCA awards has been independent of the University's normal quality assurance arrangements. It would now be advisable for this provision to be brought within the compass of the University's annual evaluation and periodic review arrangements, and for it to satisfy itself that other instances of provision leading to the awards of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies are also included within the ambit of its standard quality management and assurance arrangements.

297 Students who met the audit team considered that the learning resources available to them are adequate and match the needs of the accountancy programmes. They consider that they benefit from the support of approachable and helpful tutors and a supportive learning environment overall. Comments in feedback and evaluation questionnaires and in the minutes of SSLCs, the forerunners of the present student panels, support these observations. Students in Accountancy are able to point to changes in teaching styles and learning support arrangements which have followed from consideration of their feedback and evaluations. The team came to the view that the quality of the learning opportunities is suitable for programmes and pathways leading to the provision listed in paragraph 295, above.

Business Studies

298 The following undergraduate programmes and pathways in the Department of Business Studies were included in the scope of the DAT: BA (Hons) Business Studies (including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; BA (Hons) Business Studies with Environmental Management; International Business, Business Information Management; Entrepreneurship and Business and Combined Studies; the HNC in Business Management; and BA (Hons) Business Studies and Psychology. The programme specifications for these programmes and pathways set out appropriate learning outcomes developed in the light of the appropriate subject benchmarks (general business and management and psychology) and have been mapped against them.

299 The marked and moderated student work provided to support the DAT demonstrated the use by the Department of a wide range of assessment methods. From its study of students' assessed work, its review of reports by external examiners, and its discussions with students and staff, the audit team was able to confirm that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. There was, however, a lack of evidence of assessment criteria in module handbooks, assignment briefs or marking guidelines. The Department is therefore advised to revisit the advice offered in the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students. The School is already aware of the need to provide complete sets of marks at assessment boards, to formalise its procedures for agreeing deadlines for deferment and for improving procedures for recording internal moderation and the team encourages the University to work with the Dean and the School to address these matters.

300 Students have the opportunity to evaluate and feedback information on their learning experiences through questionnaires and SSLCs, the latter having recently been replaced by student panels. Evidence from questionnaires and the minutes of last session's SSLCs show that students are generally satisfied with the quality of their teaching and their learning environment more generally. The quality of learning opportunities is suitable for the programmes and pathways which lead to the awards listed in paragraph 298, above.

Chemistry

301 The scope of the DAT covered the following programmes and pathways: BSc (Hons) and MChem in Chemistry (with various options); BSc (Hons) and MSc in Forensic and Analytical Science; BSc (Hons) and MSc in Pharmaceutical Science; MSc in Analytical Chemistry and Forensic Analytical Science; PhD in Chemical Sciences, Biosciences and Materials. The part-time programmes and pathways included in the DAT were: MSc in Analytical Chemistry; PhD in Chemical Sciences, Biosciences and Materials.

302 From its study of students' assessed work and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes audited was appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location in the FHEQ. Programme specifications set out the appropriate educational aims and learning outcomes together with details of teaching and learning methods and assessment details. Programme outcomes reflect relevant subject benchmark statements. Student evaluation of the programmes was positive. The team formed the view that the quality of provision was suitable to the programmes of study leading to the named awards listed in paragraph 301.

Music

303 The scope of the DAT included programmes and pathways in Music leading to the following awards: BMus (Hons); BA Music (Hons) with English or History or Drama or a Modern Language (hereafter, 'Music with' pathways); BA (Hons) Music Technology; MA Music. A programme specification was provided for each programme and pathway which shows that their development has been informed with reference to the Subject benchmark statement for music. The structure of the programme specifications also shows evidence that consideration has been given to the advice offered by the FHEQ. The marked and moderated student work seen by the audit team suggested that further work needs to be done to embed the University's overall approach to the provision of constructive, supportive, and formative assessment to students in the Music Technology area. Academic and performance standards achieved by Music students meet those set out in the programme specifications.

304 The quality of learning opportunities available to students in Music is generally satisfactory. There is a specialist Music Library which provides access to books, journals, scores, sheet music, LPs and CDs. In other areas, however, there are matters which the Division and the University have identified need to be addressed. Accordingly, they are working to improve soundproofing for practice rooms, and more of the latter are required for ensemble work. There are mixed views among students about the level of access they have to specialist software and PCs. Staff support for the Music area on the VLE is variable. There is evidence to suggest that learning opportunities for students following the BA (Hons) Music Technology, responsibility for which is shared between the Division of Music and the School of Computing and Engineering, are less satisfactory than for other Music students. The University is aware of this matter and is taking steps to address it; this is to be encouraged.

305 Students in Music provide feedback on their learning experiences through module questionnaires, informal conversations with staff, and meetings of SSLCs, now redesignated student panels. Samples of the questionnaires and the minutes of the SSLCs show that students' concerns (including those of Music Technology students) had been brought to SSLCs for discussion and that the minutes of the latter had been used to inform developments and responses.

306 Overall, and with the reservations noted above with respect to Music Technology, the quality of learning opportunities is suitable for programmes and pathways leading to the awards listed in paragraph 303, above.

Psychology

307 The scope of the DAT comprised programmes and pathways in Psychology leading to the following awards: BSc (Hons) in Psychology, Social Psychology, Psychology with Criminology, and Psychology with Counselling. The scope of the DAT also included postgraduate provision leading to the award of PhD in Psychology.

308 From its study of students' work, external examiners' reports and other documentation, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team found that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. Programme specifications set out appropriate learning aims and outcomes, linking them clearly to teaching and learning. The provision meets the expectations of the subject benchmark statement, and the intended learning outcomes are achieved. Assessment procedures are careful, thorough and well matched to the learning outcomes. However, as noted elsewhere in this report, there is scope to improve clarity and transparency in the way final degree classifications are arrived at.

309 Students are given high levels of support and their progress is carefully monitored. Student evaluation of the provision is positive. The care exercised over the supervision of research students is particularly noteworthy. The audit team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students is suitable for programmes and pathways leading to the awards listed in paragraph 307, above.

The institution's use of the Academic Infrastructure

310 The University's regulations and systems have been designed and implemented in order to ensure that across its portfolio its provision is (in its own words) 'compliant' with the the Code of practice, the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements, together with good practice guidelines from the Higher Education Academy, professional statutory and regulatory bodies 'and other relevant external sources'.

311 Responsibility for overseeing the consistency of the University's regulations and quality management arrangements with advice offered by the Academic Infrastructure rests with UTLC. An appendix to the SED mapped the University's arrangements in detail against all 10 sections of the Code of practice and with its assistance, and other evidence provided throughout the briefing and the audit visit, the audit team was able to satisfy itself that the University's arrangements are generally in alignment with the advice offered by the precepts of the Code.

312 From the information provided to support the DATs and from its discussions with members of the University and students the audit team was able to satisfy itself that subject areas across the University have referred to the relevant subject benchmark statements when developing, validating and reviewing programmes and pathways and to confirm that the consistency of pathways and programmes with the recommendations of the FHEQ is likewise checked at validation and in the course of periodic and subject reviews. From its reading of a wide range of programmes in each of the DATs , the team was also able to confirm that intended learning outcomes are mapped onto individual modules and that the assessment procedures adopted are, in each case, appropriate. Overall, the team came to the view that the University was making full use of the AI in its internal quality and academic standards arrangements.

The utility of the SED as an illustration of the institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations, and to act on these to enhance quality and standards

313 With respect to the areas on which the SED provided comments and information, the audit team found it to be accurate but, as the audit progressed, the team was able to identify a number of important areas which the SED had not discussed. These included the University's arrangements for its postgraduate research students, including its programme to prepare them for teaching undergraduates; its recruitment procedures; its arrangements to provide Teaching Quality Information (TQI); and the role of the Registry in quality and academic standards management. The team found these omissions surprising, particularly since several represented areas of strength in the University's arrangements.

314 Overall, the audit team found the SED to be largely descriptive with evaluative comments mostly confined to positive generalisations. In some key areas, statements in the SED could have been made more clearly, and references could have been provided to essential supporting evidence. One consequence of the omissions in the SED was that the team was obliged to identify and request a large number of additional documents throughout the audit process to support its enquiries. To a large degree, the readiness of the University to provide the information it requested, enabled the team to make good the deficiencies in the SED.

The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards

315 While the University has readily acknowledged that it needs to do more to promote the dissemination of good practice, nonetheless it was able to provide the audit team with convincing evidence of a number of instances of successful enhancement initiatives including the measures it has taken to ensure greater consistency in quality management at school and subject level; its development of a value added index and the establishment of a Quality and Standards Advisory Group to support quality assurance and quality management. These are real achievements but it remains the case that the University has yet to develop an active approach to identifying innovations and good practice in the schools and subjects (and outside the University) for institution-wide dissemination. This would now be desirable.

Reliability of Information

316 The University's SED provided no information on the measures it had taken to enable it to provide TQI to the national website. The University has, however, appointed a TQI Coordinator, based in the Registry. It is the University's view that its readiness to provide quantitative data to the national site is well advanced but that some work remained to be done in order to enable it to provide the site with qualitative information, since some of the latter was stored locally under the University's devolved arrangements.

In the light of the evidence provided for the audit team and its discussions with members of the University, the team came to the view that the University's confidence that it will be able to meet all the requirements of HEFCE for TQI by the beginning of 2005 was not misplaced.

Features of good practice

317 In the course of the audit, the following features of good practice were noted or brought to the attention of the team:

i its arrangements for thematic reviews and services reviews, which enable it to monitor matters of cross-institutional relevance and inform their development (paragraph 70)

ii the robustness and apparent effectiveness of the design it has adopted for annual evaluation of pathways and programmes (paragraph 61 and 70), and the design of its arrangements for responding to external examiners' reports and communicating to them the actions it has taken (paragraph 77)

iii its draft e-learning strategy, which maps on to the e-learning framework developed by the Joint Information Systems Committee (paragraph 137)

iv the ways in which links between formativr and summative assessments have been made in some areas (paragraphs 144, 179, 194 and 240)

vi the use it makes of its ASIS at the level of the individual student (paragraph 109) and to analyse patterns and trends in progression and completion in some areas (paragraph 210)

v the steps taken by the University to support its students, including: its arrangements for their induction including the diagnostic tests and study skills support it provides for them and the work of its ASTs (paragraph 146); its personal tutorial arrangements (paragraph 155); the attention it continues to pay to identifying and meeting the needs of its students in designing and implementing its teaching, learning and assessment arrangements (paragraphs 35 and 148); the clear focus on the needs of students which its Student Services have adopted (paragraph 146); and the supervision and personal and general support arrangements it has implemented for its research students (paragraph 153).

Recommendations for action

318 As the University continues to develop its quality and academic standards management arrangements, it may wish to consider the advisability of:

i defining more closely for its schools and award boards the criteria they are to follow when deciding how to use the discretion it allows them in its degree classification arrangements, and asking its Teaching and Learning Committee to monitor how schools and award boards use such discretion (paragraphs 38 and 42)

ii reviewing how its present process for the confirmation of module marks by pathway assessment boards might be developed, to allow them to review the marks for a range of subject modules when appropriate and, what formal reporting arrangements might be required to ensure that any changes arising from such a review of marks could be transparently recorded (paragraphs 37, 39 and 42)

iii bringing its programme which leads to the professional examinations of the ACCA fully into its own annual and periodic arrangements for monitoring and review, and satisfying itself that all other such provision fall fully within its own quality assurance arrangements (paragraphs 59 and 177).

319 It might also be desirable for the University to:

i design and implement policies which will lead to a more active approach to identifying, disseminating and embedding good practice (paragraph 45)

ii clarify its regulations to ensure that its requirements with respect to the participation of external peers in all validations and approvals is unambiguously stated (paragraph 50)

iii build on the observations it offered in its SED and develop its quality assurance arrangements for e-learning (paragraphs 132 and 255)

iv develop its strategic understanding of how ASIS might be used to its full advantage in quality and academic standards management including cohort analysis (paragraph 111)

v keep under review the effectiveness of its new system for student evaluation of pathways, in order to ensure that the richness of module-level information which its predecessor generated is not lost (paragraphs 99 and 105)

vi take steps throughout its assessment processes to ensure that the fact that the moderation of marking and marks has taken place is reliably recorded (paragraph 215).

ISBN 1 84482 249 4

University of Huddersfield Institutional Audit