1 An institutional audit of the University of Huddersfield (the University) was undertaken during the week commencing 6 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 for its awards.
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by QAA at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by QAA on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of its academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; and for publishing reliable information. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of an example of institutional processes at work at the level of the programme, through discipline audit trails (DATs), together with examples of those processes operating at the level of the institution as a whole. The scope of the present audit did not encompass collaborative arrangements leading to the University's awards which will be the subject of a future, separate audit.
Section 1: Introduction: the University of Huddersfield
The institution and its mission
4 The University originates from a number of nineteenth century predecessors which in time became the Huddersfield College of Technology, from which the Polytechnic of Huddersfield developed in 1970. The Polytechnic became the University of Huddersfield in 1992 under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act of that year.
5 The University occupies a unitary campus adjacent to the centre of Huddersfield and is organised into seven Schools: Applied Sciences; Computing and Engineering; Design Technology; Education and Professional Development; the Huddersfield University Business School (HUBS); Human and Health Sciences; and Music and Humanities. The School of Computing and Engineering was formed in 2002 from the amalgamation of the former Schools of Computing and Mathematics with the School of Engineering. Each School is headed by an appointed Dean and may be further subdivided into departments and divisions.
6 In the academic year 2003-04 the University enrolled 19,564 students (15,678 full-time equivalent students (FTEs)). The majority of students (77 per cent) are undergraduates. Nineteen per cent of the student body comprises taught postgraduates and 2 per cent postgraduate research students. Full-time students represent 36 per cent of the student population and 40 per cent of students study on a part-time basis; 24 per cent of students follow programmes of study with a sandwich element. Of the part-time students the majority (66 per cent) are over 21 years of age and the majority are female (58 per cent). The University also operates a series of franchises which represent 13 per cent of the enrolled students, with the remainder being UK/EU (83 per cent) and from overseas (4 per cent). The distribution of FTEs between the schools is as follows: Applied Sciences, 9 per cent; Computing and Engineering, 14 per cent; Art and Design, 12 per cent; Education and Professional Development, 14 per cent; HUBS, 18 per cent; Human and Health Sciences, 23 per cent; and Music and Humanities, 9 per cent.
7 In September 2002, the University moved from a semesterised academic year to a 'whole year' structure. This is based around six 20-credit modules per year of study delivered across the three terms; the change was in part to facilitate the introduction of the University's revised assessment strategy (see below, paragraph 35). At the time of the audit the University was continuing to deploy a proprietary virtual learning environment (VLE) as part of its measures to support students' learning opportunities.
8 The self-evaluation document (SED) drew attention to the closeness of the University's links with Huddersfield and the locality (see below, paragraphs 102 to 105) and its energetic work in widening access to higher education (HE) (see below, paragraphs 141 to 149) as distinctive features of its overall approach to the provision of HE. The University views itself as focusing on teaching and learning with an emphasis on vocationally orientated programmes of study in which close attention is paid to employability while enabling students to develop their intellectual capabilities and personal aspirations. The University's emphasis on employability has led it to develop an algorithm to seek to establish the value added by its educational provision at the level of the individual student and by each programme of study (see below, paragraph 113).
9 The mission statement of the University is as follows:
'The University of Huddersfield will offer high quality learning, enriched by research and engagement with our business and cultural communities, to all who can benefit'.
Collaborative provision
10 Since 2000 the University has expanded its collaborative provision, a significant part of which is delivered within a Consortium for Post-Compulsory Education and Training organised as a consortium of more than 30 partners. It has also participated in a 'Foundation 4 Success Consortium' with 12 further education colleges and three other universities in the region. The development of the two consortia has made a marked contribution to the growth of Foundation Degree provision. The University's collaborative provision overall is to be the subject of a future collaborative provision audit to take place later in 2006-07.
Background information
11 The published information available for this audit included:
- the report of a quality audit of the University conducted in 2000 by QAA, published in February 2001 (the 2001 report)
- reports of reviews by QAA of provision at subject level, published since 2000
- information on the respective websites of the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, Higher Education Research Opportunities in the UK, HEFCE and the University of Huddersfield.
12 The University provided QAA with:
- an institutional SED and appendices and five discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the disciplines selected for the DATS, together with the relevant programme specifications
- its Strategic Plan 2003 to 2007
- Its Undergraduate and Postgraduate Prospectuses 2004-05
- its handbook 'Quality Assurance Procedures for Taught Programmes' (the 'Green Book') as published in October 2004; its 'Students' Handbook of Regulations' September 2004; and its Regulations for Awards September 2004
- relevant thematic, subject and school/service review reports
- its staff development programme for 2004-05, and
- access to the University intranet and VLE sites.
13 During the briefing and audit visits, the audit team was also given ready access to a range of the University's internal documents. The team is grateful for the prompt and helpful manner in which the University responded to its requests for information.
The audit process
14 Following preliminary meetings at the University in January 2004 with representatives of the University and students, QAA confirmed the number of DATs to be conducted during the audit visit. QAA received the University's institutional SED in August 2004. On the basis of the SED and other information provided, the audit team selected the DATs, and QAA subsequently confirmed to the University that the DATs would focus on accounting, business studies, chemistry, psychology, and music. The University provided QAA with DSEDs in October 2004.
15 The audit team visited the University in November 2004 and met the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of the University and students' representatives. The briefing meetings enabled the team to explore matters discussed by the University in its SED and to discuss with students matters they had similarly raised in the students' written submission (SWS). At the end of the briefing visit the team proposed a programme of meetings for the audit visit and requested some additional information. The programme for the audit visit was agreed by the University. No areas were specifically identified for thematic enquiries.
16 The audit visit took place in the week beginning 6 December 2004. The audit team comprised Professor M Broadbent; Mr D Day; Professor T J Kemp; Dr R Latto; Ms K Powell-Williams; and Professor N Pratt, auditors, and Ms C McIntyre, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Development and Enhancement Group.
Developments since the previous academic quality audit
17 The University participated in a continuation audit in 2000, the report of which was published in February 2001 (the 2001 report). This commended the University for its robust and well-understood regulatory framework for the quality assurance and enhancement of taught programmes; its robust processes for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of its central service units, and the communication structures by means of which those units interact with the academic schools; and its strategic approach to the professional development of staff, as evidenced in its overt processes for the continuous planning, resourcing and evaluation of staff development activity.
18 The 2001 report also recommended that the University should consider the advisability of ensuring transparent and systematic mechanisms through which the Senate and the University's Teaching and Learning Committee (UTLC) might gain access to matters arising from the quality assurance processes within schools. The specifics of this recommendation included references to the lack of means to evaluate modules offered across more than one school; of robust means to enable the centre of the University to monitor the work of departments in quality and academic standards including how they monitored compliance with their own and the University's admissions criteria; and how external examiners' reports were used by schools.
19 The University was also advised to consider how it might further formalise and strengthen its approval procedures for overseas collaborative provision, particularly those relating to the overseas delivery of the University programmes by University staff (ODUPUS) and to establish a mechanism 'by which the University can assure itself of the accuracy of publicity materials produced by schools and in relation to collaborative provision'. As noted elsewhere in this report the University's collaborative provision is to be the focus of a collaborative provision audit to be conducted later in 2006-07. Accordingly, the University's measures to address the collaborative provision aspects of these last two recommendations will be touched on only briefly in this report.
20 The SED provided an account of the work the University had subsequently undertaken to address the recommendations of the 2001 report. It stated that the University was now able to monitor and evaluate modules offered across schools through annual evaluation reviews (see below, paragraphs 56 to 61) and through the relevant staff-student liaison committees (SSLCs), now known as student panels (see below, paragraphs 88 to 95).
21 The SED also stated that the centre of the University was now better able to monitor the work of departments and schools in the University's quality assurances processes through the designation of individuals by the University Teaching and Learning Committee to sit on each school's Annual Evaluation Committee. The UTLC nominees report directly to it, independent of the schools.
22 With reference to monitoring admissions processes, the SED reported that a new admissions policy had been established in 2003 and that the development of value-added student entry data provided the centre of the University with means to oversee how departments and schools were using admissions criteria, and whether they were abiding by them (see below, paragraph 113).
23 The 2001 report suggested that the University should consider how UTLC could gain access to matters arising from the quality assurance processes within schools, and from external examiners' reports. The SED noted that the responses schools make to external examiners on matters raised in their reports have been brought into the annual evaluation reviews, with Deans of School now being responsible for ensuring appropriate actions (see below, paragraph 78). As set out in the SED, the University's view continues to be that while it has overall control of and responsibility for quality, as was the case at the last audit, it has now devolved to the schools much accountability for the delivery and enhancement of quality.
24 Since the 2001 report was published, the University has participated in subject reviews organised by QAA in History, Law, Engineering, and Earth, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies and Geography, in each case with positive outcomes. The University also participated in a Foundation Degree review in Business Finance and Law in 2003. Again, the outcome was positive.
25 Much of the University's provision is also subject to review by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs). Reports by PSRBs on University programmes and courses are monitored by UTLC through the annual evaluation reports of the relevant schools (see below, paragraph 56). The reports of a number of such reviews (all with positive outcomes) were made available to the audit team at its request.
26 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University had responded with care and attention to each of the recommendations of the 2001 report and that the measures it had taken had been appropriate in the context of its own strategy and mission.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The institution's view as expressed in the SED
27 The SED described the processes for assuring quality and standards in terms of the responsibilities of the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (PVC (AA)) and the committees which consider quality issues. The PVC (AA) chairs UTLC which establishes, monitors and evaluates the University's quality processes; the PVC (AA) is also a member of Senate, the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC) and the Planning and Resources Group (PRG), which reports to PRC.
28 Senate is responsible for assuring the quality of the University's courses and the standards of its awards. The SED stressed that a commitment to quality is seen as the responsibility of all staff and that the University devolves to its schools much of the accountability for the delivery and enhancement of quality (see below). The SED stated that the University considered that there were 10 key inputs for assuring the academic standards of its awards. These included the curriculum structure and curriculum planning; the validation of new programmes and pathways; the recruitment and admission of students; the assessment, progression and classification of awards; external reference; evaluation and monitoring; and the appointment of high-quality staff and staff development. The University identifies additional inputs for collaborative provision and for the quality and academic standards management of research awards.
29 The SED identified the mainsprings of the University's quality assurance system as: an established system for programme approval, monitoring and annual review; periodic subject, thematic, and school or service reviews; an effective external examiner system; and a series of mechanisms for student feedback. During the briefing and audit visits the audit team explored how the approaches outlined in the SED for assuring the quality of academic activity and academic standards operated in practice.
The institution's framework for managing quality and standards, including collaborative provision
30 UTLC is responsible to Senate for overseeing and developing the University's regulatory framework, and for the audit, monitoring and evaluation of the quality of provision and the academic standards of awards. A subgroup of UTLC, the Quality and Standards Advisory Group (QSAG), the membership of which is drawn from staff with relevant experience who are based in the schools, was set up in 2000 to provide advice to the PVC (AA) and to monitor quality and academic standards by monitoring what are seen by the University as QAA's 'reference points', and by supporting internal and external reviews and assisting schools and services in order to meet or exceed the terms of the advice offered by QAA.
31 The University's processes for assuring quality and safeguarding the academic standards of its awards are enshrined in five handbooks: the 'Green Book', the 'Handbook of Collaborative Provision', its 'Regulations for Awards', the 'Students Handbook of Regulations' and, lastly, 'Information and Guidance for Research Award Candidates and Supervisors'. The 'Students Handbook of Regulations' is referred to by the University as 'The Raspberry Book' and students who met the audit team referred to it as 'The Red Book'. The information which each of these contains is available to staff as hard copies and on the University's website, and the team came to the view that, in general, the handbooks provide staff and students with a well documented and clear description of how quality and academic standards are managed by the University.
32 The SED referred briefly to the role of the Registry in assuring quality and maintaining academic standards, but in its discussions with members of the University and through its consideration of University papers the audit team came to recognise that the Registry fulfilled a number of important functions which the SED could have usefully described. These include support for:
- the development of the University's regulatory and curriculum framework
- the assessment processes and the conferment of awards
- the development and maintenance of the University's quality assurance and quality support frameworks
- the approval, monitoring and review of the University's collaborative provision
- the continuous monitoring of the University's external examining system, and
- the collection of qualitative data to meet the needs of the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) process.
33 Discussions with members of the University indicated that Registry staff also provided an advisory role for colleagues across the University in relation to the operation of the quality and standards processes, and that they worked to ensure that the processes set out in the regulatory framework are adhered to. Members of staff at all levels told the audit team that they valued the Registry's advisory role in such matters.
34 Within schools, strategy and policy are determined by school boards and managed by the Deans. While there is some variation between schools, all have teaching and research committees which correspond to those at University level, although in the case of the School of Design and Technology (and with the approval of Senate) these have been merged. School boards report directly to Senate and also send reports to UTLC.
35 In 2002 the University established an Assessment Strategy Steering Group to review its assessment strategy with a view to reducing the burden of assessment on staff and students; reducing the number of referrals and deferrals in assessments; ensuring consistency of practice and equity across the University; and ensuring that the University's assessment arrangements were consistent with the advice offered by the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by QAA, in relation to assessment. The report of the Steering Group was accepted by UTLC and from September 2002 the University introduced a new assessment strategy, the main features of which have included the replacement of semesters by year-long modules; further development and use of formative assessment; the introduction of tutor re-assessment; and the substitution of the month of July for September for the conduct of referral/deferral examinations. In this connection, it should be noted that tutor re-assessment is intended to provide a process through which student work which has been submitted and marked as unsatisfactory may be reworked and resubmitted for assessment before marks are formally presented to a pathway assessment board (PAB), with the understanding that the maximum mark for such a re-assessed piece of work will be 40 per cent.
36 Following the implementation of its new assessment strategy the University undertook a limited evaluation of its impact, a report of which was received by UTLC in September 2003. This report concluded that the overall effect of the new assessment strategy had been positive as regards student retention and particularly for student achievement. It also found that there was 'a great variety' in the way schools were using both formative assessment and tutor re-assessment. This has paved the way for the University to undertake a more thoroughgoing review of the working of the assessment strategy with the participation of independent peers. This review was due to take place in summer 2005.
37 The University has an institution-wide policy for the classification of undergraduate honours degrees which is set out in its Regulations for Awards. Under this policy PABs are responsible for making decisions about the classification and conferment of awards, including the consideration of extenuating circumstances and the overall profile of marks, but cannot alter moderated module marks. The University provides guidance for PABs on mark bands for degree classes, which it expects them to follow.
38 Early in 2004 the University's internal monitoring enabled it to identify that its regulations for the classification of undergraduate awards were not being followed uniformly, and UTLC resolved that all schools must adopt the regulation referred to above. The audit team discussed this matter with members of the University in the course of the DATs. It learned that some schools have provided written advice to PABs on how the discretion allowed to them may be exercised. Other schools have not, however, provided such guidance, and there is no institution-wide policy on the matter. While UTLC annually reviews the distribution of the honours classes awarded across the schools, it does not, as yet, monitor how, and in what circumstances, schools use the discretion allowed to them to set the class of an award, nor does it provide detailed guidance for the use of this discretion.
39 Under the University's regulations, mark grids and samples of students' work are sent to external examiners for scrutiny and comment and the latter are incorporated into the grades and consequent recommendations, which are presented to the relevant PAB. The audit team noted that with the disappearance of module assessment boards, the process of moderation of module marks had become significant. As noted above, PABs do not have the power to alter module marks, nor is there any other forum where a range of subject modules may be reviewed and the module marks changed if necessary.
40 Through the DATs, the audit team was able to see examples of how assessments are set, marked and moderated. In some of the work the team scrutinised, however, it was not possible to see whether moderation had taken place, even though significant amounts of credit were attached to some pieces of work. The SED did not state whether or not the University's assessment arrangements overall were consistent with the advice of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students. In this connection the team noted some expressions of concern in the SWS about the lack of feedback provided for students on their performance in examinations, although members of the University told the team that from June 2004 students would be entitled to feedback following examinations and that this information would be conveyed through pathway handbooks.
41 As noted earlier, collaborative provision will be covered in a future audit. The SED described the range of collaborative provision and the processes which are used to assure quality and standards are described in detail in the Handbook of Collaborative Provision.
42 Reviewing the University's current assessment and classification arrangements the audit team found that the parameters for the discretion exercised when the class of honours degrees is awarded may vary from school to school, and that the extent to which discretion is exercised is not monitored by UTLC. The University may therefore wish to consider the advisability of defining more closely for its schools and award boards the criteria they are to follow when deciding to use the discretion it allows them in its degree classification arrangements, and of asking UTLC to monitor how schools and award boards use such discretion. The University may also wish to consider the advisability of considering 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. It would also be desirable for the University to take steps, throughout its assessment processes, to ensure that the fact that the moderation of marking and marks has taken place is reliably recorded. Overall, however, the team came to the view that the University had developed, and was keeping under continuous review, a broadly effective framework for managing the quality of its provision and the academic standards of its awards.
The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
43 The SED noted that since the publication of the 2001 report the University had paid closer attention to the identification and dissemination of good practice and that greater consideration has since been devoted to this matter and institutional policies for quality and academic standards through internal seminars, newsletters and websites. Attention has been focused inter alia on arrangements for monitoring the management of quality and academic standards at school level and a QSAG has been established. In addition to the development of the revised assessment strategy discussed above, school reviews have been extended to subject reviews, added-value matrices have been introduced at student and cohort level and the role of Academic Skills Tutors (ASTs) has been defined and appointments have been made. In several cases, resources the University has secured from the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) have been used to develop, enhance and disseminate good practice. Examples of this work include attention paid to the personal tutor system, student peer monitoring, personal development portfolios, and support for students with disabilities.
44 Support for the quality of teaching and its enhancement is a key strategic matter for the University. Among the means it has adopted to support and enhance the quality of teaching (which it has identified for itself as a key strategic matter) have been the establishment of teaching fellows and the development of a teaching award scheme (see below, paragraphs 124 to 126) and the appointment of learning and technology advisers in the schools to enhance e-learning (see below, paragraph 136).
45 The SED indicated that the University's internal periodic reviews, thematic reviews, subject reviews, school and service reviews all led to enhancement through the recognition of activities for improvement and the sharing of good practice. The SED also offered a frank evaluation that more could be done to promote the dissemination of good practice, although this recognition was not accompanied by an action plan to address the matter. In the course of the audit the audit team came to share the University's view of the contribution its various internal review processes made to the identification of good practice and to appreciate how monitoring and review and reflection on the outcomes had contributed to the recent development of the University's assessment strategy (see above), to the development of thematic and subject reviews, and to arrangements to make the outcomes of annual monitoring and evaluation more visible within schools and at University level. It was less clear, however, how the University took note of local initiatives for quality enhancement and brought them to wider attention. The team discussed this matter with members of the University and was told that the take-up and development of the VLE University-wide have been in response to its initial development by individuals and schools (see below, paragraph 132). It might now be desirable for the University to design and implement arrangements which will lead to a more active approach to identifying, disseminating and embedding good practice.
46 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University had been successful in taking forward a number of individual developments. The team shares the University's view that more could be done to think through how good practice and quality enhancement could be systematically and strategically promoted across the University and it encourages the University to continue this desirable work.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
Validation and approval of new provision
47 The University's processes for approving taught programmes are clearly described in the Green Book. New pathways (combinations of modules) are validated by means of one of three types of validation and approval event, organised at University level, school level, or at school level with the participation of a nominee of UTLC, respectively. In general, major developments are approved through validation and approval at University level and minor developments at school level. The criteria for deciding which type of event should be followed are formally laid down in the Green Book where 'minor' is defined as involving provision rated at 100 credits or less at undergraduate level, and 60 credits or less at postgraduate level. The final decision on which form of event should be followed is made by the Registry, in consultation with the PVC (AA). In general, new modules which are intended to form part of existing pathways are validated at school level, while new modules intended for use in a new pathway which will be the subject of university-level validation, will be submitted to the panel convened for that purpose (see below).
48 Where the validation and approval event is to take place at school level, the latter is responsible for organising the process, the details of which are otherwise similar to those which apply for validation and approval at University level. For the latter, there is a clear specification of the documentation required to support a submission for validation and approval, including the production of a statement of resources required to support the proposed provision, signed by the relevant Dean. The documentation is initially scrutinised by a school panel, the membership of which is expected to be independent of the proposing team, and which may refer back the proposal or approve it (with conditions, if appropriate) for submission to university-level validation.
49 According to the Green Book, validation panels are normally expected to include not less than one external member. For a vocational programme that member may be from industry, commerce, the public service, or the professions. In practice, however, the Green Book notes that panels will normally comprise 50 per cent internal and 50 per cent external members, 'excluding the chair who is normally an internal appointee'. The Green Book requires the Assistant Registrar (Quality) to ensure that external members have not had close involvement with the University in the previous five years.
50 The University's regulations state that validation and approval must involve people drawn from 'inside and outside the field of study concerned; inside and outside the institution or other body providing the course; inside and outside higher education'. The audit team considered a number of reports from validation events conducted at University and school level. These showed that relevant external members were part of all the validation panels for university-level events. For validation events conducted at school level, where the provision was associated with a PSRB, the team was able to confirm that external peers routinely participated, although in several others, at school-level external peers did not appear to have participated in validations and approvals and the University later confirmed that the participation of external peers in such events was not a requirement. It might therefore be desirable for the University to clarify its regulations to ensure that the participation of external peers in all validations and approvals is unambiguously stated and their presence is clearly recorded (see below, paragraph 74).
51 Reports from validation panels are expected to be made in a standard form. Once a report has been finalised it is considered by the pathway committee and a response is formulated, setting out how any recommendations or conditions will be addressed and/or satisfied. This must be approved by the school board before it can be sent to the chair of the validation panel for approval. The Dean of the school is then responsible for ensuring that recommendations and/or conditions are followed up, and for reporting action taken to the Registry. If there are difficulties in meeting prescribed conditions the Dean is expected to report this to UTLC. The chair of the school or University validation panel is responsible for confirming to the Assistant Registrar (Quality) that any conditions set have been met.
52 Final approval is given by the UTLC, on the advice of the Registry, and a pathway cannot be offered to students until all conditions from the validation event have been satisfied and the validation report has been approved by UTLC. The University's general procedure for checking that conditions attached to the approval of a pathway (or individual modules) rely on these being highlighted in the subsequent annual evaluation reports of the pathway committee.
53 Where a new pathway is to be submitted for validation and approval, the chair of the pathway committee is responsible for ensuring that the documentation prepared to support the validation includes a programme specification constructed in conformity with a detailed University template. This ensures that the programme specification refers to subject benchmark statements; the requirements of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) (SENDA); the Code of practice, Section 3: Students with disabilities; and the University's framework and regulations for awards, which in turn is designed to conform with The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ). Advice on writing programme and module specifications is made available in the University's curriculum development handbooks, 'Designing Programme Specifications', and 'Designing Module Specifications'.
54 The University provided the audit team with information on validation and approval procedures for provision offered through partnership arrangements. Recognising that a collaborative provision audit would take place in 2006-07 the team did not enquire closely into this aspect of the University's validation and approval arrangements.
55 The University provided the audit team with the documentation for a number of University and school-level validations. Overall, and recognising the desirability of ensuring the participation of external peers in school-level validation procedures, the team found that the University's procedures for the approval of new taught pathways/programmes of study, and the modification of existing programmes and pathways, were effective and consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice.
Annual monitoring and evaluation
56 The University's procedures for the annual evaluation of pathways are carried out at school level. Annual evaluation reports for each pathway are produced at the end of each session, using a detailed standard form the headings for which are set out in the Green Book and to which are attached the relevant reports from the external examiners. Annual evaluation reports are expected to include analyses of student questionnaires at the pathway level, although there are also opportunities for students to make comments about individual modules.
57 The University's previous arrangements for gathering feedback from its students on their learning experiences collected detailed information at the midpoint of delivery of each module and at its end which led to thorough analyses and reports. This process was discontinued as a result of the University's recent thematic review of student evaluation (see below, paragraph 66) and has since been replaced by arrangements which emphasise learning experience at the pathway or programme level and offer students opportunities to make comments on modules only on an exceptional basis.
58 Annual evaluation reports are initially considered by the relevant pathway committee before being submitted to a school-level annual evaluation panel, the membership of which will include a member of staff from outside the school who is nominated by UTLC and reports to it. Having discussed the report, the annual evaluation panel is expected to discuss any salient points with the relevant pathway committee. After their meetings with the programme and pathway committees the evaluation panel for each school prepares a synoptic report for UTLC. These are considered by the relevant school board and by the Annual Evaluation Sub-committee of UTLC which checks for recurring and institution-wide themes.
59 A school board may refer matters arising from an annual evaluation report to the UTLC and, if necessary, to the Senate itself, and the relevant Dean is expected to monitor the progress of the evaluation process. In the DATs which it conducted to enquire into Accounting the audit team found that the annual evaluation for a programme of studies leading to a qualification of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) had focused on the requirements of the professional body and had not followed the University's normal procedures (see below, paragraph 177). The team discussed this matter with members of the University and came to the view that this was likely to have been an isolated instance. Nonetheless, the University might wish to consider the advisability of 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 falls fully within its own quality assurance arrangements.
60 In view of the advice offered in the 2001 report that the University might wish to consider introducing transparent and systematic mechanisms through which the Senate and UTLC might gain access to matters arising from the quality assurance processes within schools, the audit team took care to enquire into the effectiveness of the annual evaluation arrangements described above. From the material the team saw it appeared to be the case that pathway and programme committees produce lengthy and self-critical annual reports, which show how matters raised in previous annual evaluation reports have been tackled, and summarise the school's responses.
61 Overall, the audit team found the University's annual evaluation report process to be thorough and effective. At the level of the school, considerable time and resources are devoted to the detailed consideration of annual evaluation reports and, where a pathway or module has failed to deal with matters effectively, detailed feedback and advice can be offered. In the team's view the University's response to the advice offered in the 2001 report has been both timely and effective. The design and conduct of the University's annual evaluation process can be considered a feature of good practice.
Periodic review of provision
62 The University has established a number of periodic review processes to scrutinise the work of its schools and its cross-institutional services and to review the work of its subject communities. In addition, and independent of its periodic review arrangements, the University has also made provision for thematic reviews to monitor and evaluate matters with institution-wide relevance (see below, paragraph 66).
63 School review. The University's process of school review is intended to enable it to gain an appreciation of the strategic direction and performance of each of its schools. Review panels are appointed by Senate and report to it. They are chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a PVC, and their membership will include a senior member of another school, a senior member of a central service, a member of the University's Research Committee, and two external peers. The process is based on scrutiny by the review panel of a self-evaluation prepared by the school and meetings between members of the panel, and staff and students across the school. The outcome of a school review is a report which is submitted to UTLC and Senate. Within six months of the conclusion of a review the school must prepare and submit a report to UTLC on the actions it has taken to respond to the findings of the review.
64 Service review. For the process of service review the relevant service is required to produce a discussion paper which should address the philosophy of the service provider and how it interacts with its client groups; the mechanisms through which it assesses its own effectiveness; its resources and their deployment to support teaching and research; its staff development arrangements; and its plans for future development. As with school reviews, service review panels are appointed by Senate and report to it and panels are chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a PVC. The membership of the panel for a service review is expected to include a senior member of another service, two members of the teaching staff and two external members. The programme of meetings for a service review typically includes discussions with the head of the service and their senior staff, other members of staff and users of the service, together with an inspection of the facilities managed by the service. The review panel produces a report which is submitted to UTLC and Senate, and the relevant service must prepare and submit a report to UTLC on the actions taken in response to the findings of the panel within six months of the conclusion of the review.
65 Subject review. The University uses its internal subject review process to evaluate the strategic direction and performance of its subject areas. As with its internal periodic review processes, subject review is based on a self-evaluation, the guidance for which invites the subject area to review the curriculum area for which it is responsible, and identify opportunities for development and improvement, drawing on evidence from student feedback and evaluations, module evaluation, reports by external examiners and reports of peer observations of teaching. For subject reviews, a review panel is constituted by the school in which the subject area is located and the membership of the panel is expected to include a member from another school and an external peer. The subject review panel holds meetings with staff and students and its report is sent to the relevant school board. Ultimately, the review report and the response of the subject area are submitted to the UTLC.
66 Thematic review. The University uses its thematic review process to evaluate the strategic direction and performance of an overarching theme across the institution, to audit an area of work and its operation, and to ensure appropriate quality assurance and enhancement arrangements are in place. In general, thematic reviews make use of existing documentation which will include self-evaluation reports from a school or service highlighting perceived strengths and areas for development and appropriate supporting information such as regulations, procedures and policies relating to the theme. In thematic review the panels charged with examining a theme are (as in school and service reviews) appointed to act on behalf of Senate and they report to it. The chair of the panel for a thematic review will be the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a PVC, and other members of the panel will include a senior member of a school, a senior member of a service, a member of a major University committee and two external members. The programme for a thematic review will normally include meetings with key users or stakeholders; representatives of formally established committees or groups; a sample of staff involved in the area under review; students; and, if relevant, an inspection of facilities. Reports from thematic reviews are expected to draw conclusions and make recommendations. They are submitted to UTLC and Senate.
67 In addition to its internal review processes the University also makes use of the University Internal Audit Consortium (UNIAC) to commission reports on areas of the work of the institution which in some cases impinge on quality issues. For example, a report in 2004 on 'Student Data monitoring for Attendance' concluded that there was scope for significant improvement.
68 The SED stated that the University's periodic reviews of schools and services continued to provide the framework for a valuable dialogue to improve performance, disseminate good practice and, occasionally, identify the need for change. For example, the University's review of its financial services had led to the establishment of the Student Finance Office and the improvement of strategic advice and support to Deans and Directors. Similarly, the pilot subject review in Chemistry had been judged by those who had been involved to have been successful, and to have led to a number of useful recommendations. The University's view is that thematic reviews have also proved valuable, in that they have led to changes in the way in which students evaluate their learning opportunities, to a revision in the University's guidelines for its external examiners, to changes to the induction day for external examiners, and to the mechanisms used for achieving an overview of their reports.
69 The audit team considered examples of school, service, subject and thematic reviews. In each case the process had followed the guidelines produced by the University and had involved external experts and peers. The team was also able to confirm that for each of the reviews it followed the relevant report and the associated responses had been discussed by UTLC and that they can lead to significant changes, as had been the case with the thematic reviews of student evaluation and arrangements for external examiners. The University's has now produced a programme of reviews extending to 2007-08 which is to include thematic reviews of assessment (2005) and feedback to students (2006). In the view of the team, use of UNIAC to examine areas of the University's work provides an additional and independent scrutiny of processes which in some cases produces reports which are also relevant to the management of quality.
70 Reviewing the information available to it, the audit team came to the view that, together, school, service, subject, and thematic reviews provide the University with comprehensive and rigorous processes through which it can scrutinise and reflect on key areas of its work and its quality management and academic standards processes and how they can be enhanced. The team came to the view that the University's arrangements for thematic and service reviews enable it to monitor matters of cross-institutional relevance and inform their development, and that they are a feature of good practice.
External participation in internal review processes
71 The Green Book sets out the University's expectations that at least one member of the panel charged with conducting the validation of new provision, or undertaking a review of existing provision, should be an external peer. The membership of a panel is usually determined by the chair of the panel, together with the Assistant Registrar (Quality), who must ensure that none of the external members has had close involvement with the University in the previous five years (see above, paragraph 49).
72 The University has sought to increase the rigour and strength of external advice and has increasingly used such external participation in a wide range of activities. External involvement is also secured through independent surveys (see below, paragraph 100). The audit team learnt that advice secured from an external adviser had recently encouraged the University in its determination to mount a successful challenge to the outcome of a review by a PSRB.
73 The documentation read by the audit team showed that review panels invariably included at least one member external to the University and that in many cases more than one external member participated. For example, where a professional course is to be validated the membership of the panel will usually include an external academic in addition to a professional or practitioner member. Likewise, for university-level validations the team was able to establish that external members invariably participated in the work of panels (see above, paragraph 50).
74 In the case of school-level validations, however, the University subsequently confirmed that the participation of external peers is not required other than when the provision is linked to a PSRB. The University might wish to consider the desirability of clarifying its regulations to ensure that a requirement with respect to the participation of external peers in all validations and approvals is stated. This recommendation should not detract, however, from the audit team's overall view that the University has given serious attention to ensuring that there is a strong external element in each of its internal review and approval processes, and that this supports the judgement of broad confidence in the University's management of quality and academic standards.
External examiners and their reports
75 The SED stated that the University 'continues to regard the external examiner system as a critical element of its quality assurance processes'. Accordingly, each programme or pathway leading to an award 'is required to have an external examiner appointed in compliance with criteria and processes identified in the University's Regulations for Awards'. A section in the Regulations identifies the roles and responsibilities of external examiners and the requirements placed on pathway leaders and chairs of pathway assessment boards to provide the appropriate evidence to external examiners. The University sees the role of external examiners as 'crucial in making judgements about the comparability of standards' and the SED stated that the University followed the Code of practice.
76 The University provides an induction programme for new external examiners and informed the audit team that it had been positively evaluated by those who attended. External examiners who are unable to attend are sent the induction material and may also receive an induction within the subject area. As part of the introduction of the University's new assessment strategy a special updating event was organised to which all external examiners were invited in order to advise them of the strategy.
77 From 2004-05 external examiners will be invited to make specific comment on the use of external reference points, including the Academic Infrastructure. The standard report form for external examiners has been modified accordingly and is consistent with the advice offered by the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining. The University's new standard form reflects these changes and there is a section which is intended to be sent to the TQI website, with a more substantial section to be completed by the pathway leader. There is also a carefully sectionalised standard form providing a template for an interim action plan, and a standard form for recording 'actions taken'. The contents of both, when completed, must be endorsed by the individual external examiner. The audit team viewed the design of these procedures as a feature of good practice.
78 The University undertook a thematic review of its external examining arrangements in March 2003, the report of which raised a number of matters, including the 'diversity of approaches and variation in practice arising from the devolved structure of the institution'. The audit team noted that the findings of the thematic review had directly contributed to the development of the University's current external examining arrangements which the latter regards as 'more effective' than their predecessors. Under the new arrangements, the dean or chair of the relevant school teaching committee is responsible for analysing the external examiners' reports for the school and summarising their findings and recommendations for the PVC (AA), including any recurring positive or negative themes. The Dean of the school is also responsible for ensuring that responses are made to external examiners when required. The PVC (AA) collates and summarises each of the reports from the Deans and makes a university-level summary for UTLC.
79 The audit team discussed the University's external examining arrangements with members of staff throughout the visit. It was able to confirm that the PVC (AA) had independent access to all reports by external examiners and that members of the Registry also read the reports. The team was told that where circumstances warranted it, the Registry may draw the attention of the PVC (AA) to particular matters and that the latter might then respond directly to the relevant external examiner(s).
80 From its consideration of the papers of UTLC, the audit team noted the former's earlier observation of inconsistencies in the presentation of annual evaluation reports by schools and that, in some cases, external examiners' comments had not been included in the reports. It observed that UTLC had subsequently intervened to remind pathway leaders of the University's requirement that comments by external examiners be included in their annual evaluation reports to allow the action taken to respond to the comments to be signed off by the relevant head of department and the Dean of the school. The team was able to confirm that the intervention of UTLC had been effective and this contributed to its more general view of the Committee's effectiveness and diligence.
81 The University's view is that while its devolved structure had given rise to a number of problems relating to the consistency with which matters in quality and academic standards management have been handled by the schools, in general, these have been addressed successfully. The evidence available to the audit team supports the University's view. More particularly, the University's confidence in its external examining arrangements appears to the team to be broadly justified. The soundness of these arrangements contributed to the team's judgement that there can be broad confidence in the University's management of quality and academic standards.
External reference points
82 The SED stated that the University 'uses external reference points extensively in its quality processes, from validation through reviews to examinations, to ensure it maintains the standards of its awards'. It added that University regulations and systems 'require programmes to be compliant with the QAA Code of Practice, FHEQ, Subject Benchmark Statements and good practice guidelines from the Higher Education Academy, PSBRs and other relevant external sources'. An Appendix to the SED stated that UTLC had ensured that individual sections of the Code of practice had 'either been promulgated on a University-wide basis or [had] been delegated to specific committees to ensure that compliance is being achieved or at least worked towards' and provided a statement for each section of the Code of the level of 'compliance' (the University's term) attained.
83 The University considers that the structures of its pathways and programmes are consistent with the FHEQ and that this is to be seen in the programme specifications it has developed. As noted above, the consistency of pathways and programmes with the FHEQ is checked at the point of validation (see above, paragraph 53). Members of staff told the audit team that level descriptors are referred to in devising curricula, and that adherence to the advice of the FHEQ was checked in the course of internal subject reviews. The team was able to consult a wide range of programme specifications in the course of the DATs through which it was able to confirm that intended learning outcomes are mapped onto individual modules.
84 The audit team came to the view that the University was making full reference to the individual elements of the Academic Infrastructure in its work to manage the quality of its provision and maintain the academic standards of its awards.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
85 The University participated in four subject reviews conducted by QAA between 2000 to 2004. In each case the outcomes were positive. In 2003, QAA conducted a review of a new Foundation Degree in Business Finance and Law the report of which concluded that there could be confidence in the emerging academic standards and the achievement of students together with their learning opportunities. In general, reports from subject-level reviews by QAA are presented to the relevant school teaching committee or school board together with the response of the subject area which is subsequently reviewed by UTLC. The PVC (AA) produces an annual report on the outcomes of QAA reviews for discussion at Senate.
86 The SED listed the extensive range of reports from PSRBs which the University has received in the period since the publication of the 2001 report. It stated that PSRB reports have generally been supportive, and that in areas where scores are given (for example, by the Office for Standards in Education with respect to initial teacher training) there has been a marked improvement since 2000. As for QAA reviews, subject areas receiving PSRB reports provide written responses to the school, indicating actions taken, or areas identified for improvement, and acknowledging good practice. The original report and the response by the subject area are considered by school teaching and learning committees or school boards, as appropriate. Additionally, PSRB reports are also provided for UTLC together with the responses of the subject area and the school. In each case, the SED stated that programmes associated with professional bodies had been successfully accredited albeit, in one instance, after an appeal to the relevant body and in another after a revised submission.
87 In 2003 UTLC resolved that schools should incorporate summaries of PSRB reports and actions taken to respond to them within annual evaluation reports. From the papers of UTLC and a number of school boards the audit team was able to confirm that these procedures have been followed and it came to the view that the University's procedures for receiving considering and responding to reports from external agencies and PSRBs are sound and that there can be confidence in them.
Student representation at operational and institutional level
88 The 2001 report noted that one of 'three areas for improvement' in the University's quality strategy in 2000 was the need to 'enhance student participation in committees and in other forms of feedback' and that some pathways had experienced 'difficulties in obtaining representation'. At the time of the 2001 report the University operated a system of SSLCs which were reconstituted as 'student panels' following a thematic review of student evaluation, in 2004. Student panels operate in each of the schools on a pathway and/or programme basis, and there are also, usually, arrangements for year committees within pathways and programmes.
89 Meetings of student panels are organised on the basis of a standard agenda, which makes provision for items to be brought forward by students and staff, and the University has produced a standard format for writing up the proceedings of meetings which focuses on action and outcomes. Proceedings of student panels are written up by members of staff, but the University requires the minutes or proceedings to be formally approved by students before they can be adopted. The approved proceedings of student panels are promulgated through notice boards, the University's VLE, or web pages. In one School, Human and Health Sciences, a Student Council has been introduced to enable the School to seek views and advice from students across all the pathways it offers. The audit team learnt that a second School, Design Technology, was also experimenting with such an arrangement. For students who are elected as representatives, the Students' Union makes training available and the team was told that a handbook for student representatives had been developed.
90 The University's view is that since elected members of the Students' Union are members ex officio of Senate, Council, and other relevant University committees, it can be confident that the views of students are represented at the highest level of the institution, a view which was also advanced in the SWS. As noted above, within schools, there is provision for elected student representatives to attend meetings of student panels, programme and pathway committees, and school boards. Additionally, in some subject areas there is provision for student representatives to participate in the meetings of annual evaluation committees. The audit team noted that at present, however, there is no provision for student membership of panels conducting validations or periodic reviews.
91 Notwithstanding the careful arrangements the University has made to encourage student participation in its committees at all levels, the SED noted its continuing concern that the take-up by students of opportunities for elected representatives to attend its committees continues to be low. Its arrangements to address this difficulty include the provision of additional training opportunities for student representatives and the identification of mentors for student representatives in some schools, together with greater prominence for the proceedings of student panels and measures to enhance the flow of information to students on actions it has taken in response to their representations. As part of these arrangements it has proposed instituting a dedicated space in its VLE for reports from student representatives: a useful suggestion. Members of staff with whom the audit team discussed the University's various measures to enhance the effectiveness of student representation supported the recent move from SSLCs to student panels, but considered that strict adherence to the templates for agendas and proceedings might prove restrictive.
92 In some schools, low levels of support by students for the student representative system have encouraged the introduction of ad hoc measures, such as questionnaire surveys, to provide access to students' views on their learning experiences. Overall, however, while recognising that low levels of participation on the part of student representatives continue to be a difficulty, members of staff who met the audit team considered that students were able to exert influence on committees, boards and SSLCs/student panels and cited as an example the contributions of students to debates in school boards on the introduction of the new student fee arrangements. For the future, senior members of the University told the team that it would favour the inclusion of students' representatives in the work of annual evaluation committees and school teaching and learning committees where these have been established. Postgraduate students who met the team were familiar with representation arrangements the University has made for them and considered that they had ready access to the outcomes of meetings that affected their interests through the VLE, email and notice boards.
93 For its part, while the Students' Union enthusiastically endorses the University's support for formal student representation arrangements, and regards difficulties in some areas as stemming, in part, from insufficient support for elections by members of staff it, too, has begun to turn to ad hoc measures to make good weaknesses in formal representation arrangements. One such innovation is its policy, informally entitled 'adopt a Dean', whereby an individual member of the Students' Union seeks to forge a close working relationship with an individual Dean and their school.
94 Generally, students who met the audit team in the course of the DATs expressed doubts as to whether the proceedings of student panels led to concrete results. Having reviewed the minutes of SSLCs and the outcomes that had followed, the persistence of this view among the student body surprised the team, since it had little difficulty in identifying many such instances. For example, through the material provided to support the DATs the team found evidence of changes that had been introduced following representations through SSLCs, the forerunners to student panels, and other student representation channels. These changes included adjustments to teaching styles; the provision of additional learning documents; the introduction of support for essay writing; changes to the distribution of workload throughout the session; the development of the VLE; and changes to arrangements for practicals. On the basis of this evidence, the University may well be correct in its view that identifying instances where formal student representation has been effective may help the student body to appreciate its value.
95 Improving the standing of SSLCs/student panels in the eyes of students would seem to be all the more important, since the generally low opinion they appear to have formed of these channels of communication has the capacity to harm their interests. As it continues with its work to enhance the effectiveness of its formal representation arrangements, the team encourages the University to monitor the work of the new student panels, and to work with the Students' Union to establish greater confidence on the part of students in the effectiveness of the many available channels for representing their views.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
96 In addition to representations through the University's formal arrangements (see above) there are opportunities for students to feed back information to the University on their learning experiences through questionnaires, administered at several levels, and through their personal tutor. The SWS did not provide information on students' perceptions of the effectiveness of the University's questionnaire based feedback arrangements.
97 Prior to the introduction of the University's new assessment strategy, questionnaires were administered at module level and at the level of the whole programme or pathway. Since the introduction of the new strategy, and the thematic review of student evaluation and feedback which took place early in 2004, the University has introduced its internal 'Code of Practice on Student Feedback and Evaluation' which seeks to reduce the number of questionnaires that students are invited to complete in the interests of mitigating 'questionnaire fatigue'. Under present arrangements the focus is more on the programme/pathway, and feedback at the module level is now sought by exception. A further change has been that feedback is no longer sought part-way through the session and at its end, but solely through questionnaires administered at the end of the session.
98 The newly introduced annual programme/pathway questionnaire follows a standard format and has been designed to mirror the form taken by the National Student Survey. It can be analysed through optical mark recognition. As noted above, the content of end-of-session questionnaires is evaluated as part of the annual monitoring process (see above, paragraph 56) with the programme/pathway committee and the school board being responsible for following up comments secured through the questionnaires. This is in keeping with the University's policy to devolve much of its quality management to its schools. There are established arrangements for postgraduate research students to provide feedback to the University on their experiences of supervision at the end of each session and research students who met the audit team were satisfied that the University paid close attention to the outcomes.
99 In moving from module-level evaluation to programme/pathway-level evaluation the University has emphasised the importance of the programme but has also sought to remind staff and students of the importance of informal means of feedback to tutors, and expects that student panels will act as a partial substitute for the detailed information formerly provided through the module level questionnaires. Considering the changes that have taken place from evaluation based on module level information to evaluation based on the whole programme or pathway, the audit team could not be sure that the University's present arrangements would prove as effective as its former, module based, collection of feedback in yielding information to support quality management and quality enhancement. The team encourages the University to consider the desirability of identifying ways in which the fine detail of the information which module level evaluation and feedback was able to provide, might be secured under its new arrangements.
100 In addition to its use of end-of-session programme and pathway questionnaires and student panels to gather information on its students' learning experiences the University has also had recourse to surveys conducted by external consultants on its behalf. The SED identified one such survey, conducted in 2003. This seemed largely to have been for the purposes of marketing, since no specific actions were identified by the University as outcomes of this survey. At the time of the audit the University was considering the introduction of a biennial student satisfaction survey.
101 The University maintains a database of employers and alumni who are willing to offer placements and employment to current students and there is an alumni club. The University has customarily sought feedback from its alumni through a first destination survey but, at the time of the audit, HESA had yet to publish updated definitions for employability performance indicators under the new system of gathering data: Destination of Leavers from Higher Education - DLHE - which has recently replaced first destination statistics. The thematic review of student evaluation which the University conducted in 2003 proposed that it should gather feedback from its alumni 18 months after graduation, but the team was not able to establish what progress might since have been made on this initiative.
102 The SED stated that the University had many close links with the employers of its graduates and diplomates and frequently turns to such individuals when seeking employers to act as members of validation and review panels, and pathway committees, and when needing advice on matters such as part-time provision and placements for its substantial sandwich provision. In general, the material made available to the audit team enabled it to confirm that the University benefits from and seeks to sustain strong links with its local community.
103 The University considers that it enjoys strong links with the local community and such links are supported by the fact that many of its students choose to study with the University because they live in the locality. In the DATs the audit team found evidence to support this view. Many of the students who met the team in the DATs told it that they had chosen to study with the University because they lived in the locality and preferred its offerings to those of other nearby institutions.
104 For university-level validations, an employer is frequently a member of a validation and approval panel (see above, paragraph 49) and a statement on the level of employment demand for graduates in the particular area must be included in the documentation required to support a validation event. In the design of new provision, and the review of existing programmes and pathways, curriculum planning teams are expected to draw on information from employers, professional bodies, external consultants and external examiners. In Chemistry there is an industrial liaison committee and the team noted that in the Business School a 'Breakfast Club' had been established for employers, in part to foster the development of placements but also to support joint projects, continuing professional development, and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.
105 Overall, the University's arrangements to gather feedback from students, graduates and employers appeared to the audit team to be broadly sound. As noted in paragraph 99 above, the team encourages the University to continue to monitor the effectiveness of its new arrangements to gather the feedback from students through questionnaires at the programme/pathway level rather than at the module level.
Progression and completion statistics
106 The SED drew the audit team's attention to the fact that a number of subject reviews had commented critically on the 'rigour of the University's statistics for quality enhancement purposes' and that an independent audit by HEFCE of the University's 2000 return of Higher Education Students Early Statistics had commented critically on 'the accuracy and timeliness of the student record'. The SED described the University's response to these criticisms in terms of its relocation of its Applicant and Student Information System (ASIS) to its Planning and Information Services, and the appointment of a Director to manage and develop it. Under the arrangements the University has now introduced, ASIS centrally is now supported by ASIS managers, based in the schools.
107 It is the University's view that the changes it has made to ASIS and the management of the latter have effectively tackled the inadequacies in management information highlighted by the earlier reports, and that ASIS is now in a position to generate reliable progression and completion statistics. Its view is substantially supported by the findings of an internal audit which it commissioned, to review the effectiveness of the changes it had made. This recognised the progress which had been made since 2000 but urged the necessity to make further improvements to the accuracy of data in named areas. The audit team encourages the University to continue to work towards meeting the recommendations of its internal audit.
108 The audit team asked the University to provide it with typical samples of the statistical information that would be provided to pathway leaders, academic managers in the schools and Deans, to assist with quality and academic standards management. It was also provided with a demonstration of the information that members of the teaching and support staff based in the schools could call up from ASIS to support their work. This demonstration suggested to the team that the user interface for ASIS could helpfully be made more user-friendly.
109 The audit team discussed ASIS and how it could be used to support quality and academic standards management with members of staff based in the schools and was able to confirm that ASIS was now able to provide helpful, timely and reliable quantitative and qualitative information. The team was able to find evidence in the papers provided to support the DATs that data and information derived from ASIS were being used for quality and academic standards management at the level of the programme/pathway, and by schools. Tutors charged with overseeing admissions, pathway leaders, and some module tutors appeared to the team to be making frequent reference to ASIS reports and data. A particular strength of the ASIS system is that it allows pathway leaders and personal tutors to track the progress of individual students and the way in which ASIS assists student support is a feature of good practice.
110 The audit team also found clear evidence that discussions based on progression and completion data from ASIS were to be found in annual evaluation reports and periodic review reports, and that the annual 'retention plans' that schools are required to prepare were also based on data drawn from ASIS. In one of the DATs the audit team was interested to note that data derived from ASIS had enabled the subject area in question - Music - to identify a number of areas where completion and retention were high, and had then worked with those areas to establish their particular 'success factors' which had subsequently been more widely shared (see below, paragraph 223). This use of ASIS appeared to the team to be a feature of good practice. Likewise, in another area, Chemistry, the team learnt that the work of the Department to establish the causes of an abnormally high drop-out in a particular pathway and to respond suitably, had been assisted by information drawn from ASIS reports (see below, paragraph 210).
111 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. The University's position on this matter is consistent and has been carefully thought through. Nonetheless, the absence of baseline progression and completion data for cohorts of students is likely to make it difficult for prospective students to assess the likelihood that they will complete their chosen programme or pathway successfully. The University may wish to consider this matter further, in the interests of providing potential students with full and fair information which will enable them to make informed choices between the University's programmes and pathways, and comparable offerings in institutions which provide cohort-based data.
112 The SED emphasised the work the University has done to improve its retention of students which has included establishing a 'Retention Forum' and holding special seminars, including one sponsored by UTLC in March 2003. To emphasise the importance the University attaches to retention, the Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor had visited the schools which were subsequently required to produce individual action plans with the aim of improving retention and progression. The SED also suggested that a contributory factor in the University's decision to switch from semesters to terms had been its view that this would improve retention rates. The University's admissions policy emphasises 'capacity to benefit' from study as prominently as formal qualifications and, again, the SED suggested that the impact of the adoption of this criterion was being monitored through retention statistics.
113 The University has developed its own 'value-added index', which assigns values to entry qualifications and exit awards in an attempt to derive a link between the two. As with retention and admissions, schools report on the value added findings with respect to their provision as part of the University's annual evaluation process. The statistical information the University made available to support the audit indicated the nature of the challenges it was addressing, in that where its non-progression rates (using the definition described in paragraph 111) have improved from 8.3 per cent in 2000-01, to 2.6 per cent in 2002-03, its non-completion rates over the same period have risen from 5.7 per cent to 15.3 per cent. The University remains committed to improving completion and retention and the audit team is pleased to acknowledge the continuing work being undertaken in these areas.
Assurance of the quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
114 All teaching staff are expected to engage in teaching, scholarly activity and administration and the University is clear that the calibre of its staff is a major factor in determining the quality of the institution. Overall responsibility for the appointment, appraisal, reward and development of all staff lies with the Human Resources Committee (HRC) which reports to both Senate and the Council and is chaired by a lay member of Council. The administration of these processes is the responsibility of the Human Resources Group. The University has also established a number of other groups and committees, normally reporting to HRC, which have more specific responsibilities, particularly in staff development (see below). These include a Staff Development Group within the Human Resources Group, a TQEF Committee, chaired by a PVC, a Learning and Teaching Innovation Unit, and an Equal Opportunities and Diversity Committee.
115 The University achieved Investor in People (IiP) status in 1999, with a favourable follow-up review in 2003. It considers that its adherence to the IIP standard provides a continuing positive external evaluation of its management and development of its staff and that the outcomes of a recent survey of staff opinion and other matters, which it had commissioned from an external consultancy, had largely confirmed its own positive view.
116 Appointment procedures for staff are clearly set out and the Human Resources Group monitors compliance with them. Members of the teaching staff are initially appointed for a one-year probationary period, whatever their previous experience. The University has no published criteria for satisfactorily completing probation but members of staff who met the audit team were clear that this required the successful performance of all aspects of their role.
117 The University expects line managers to review the progress of probationer staff at three-monthly intervals and operates a mentor system whereby newly-appointed staff are supported by a mentor from their peer group. The University is considering ways of improving the training of mentors, although newly-appointed staff spoke appreciatively to the team about the help and support they had received from their mentors.
118 All members of staff undergo an annual personal development review with their line manager or another senior member of staff which sets objectives for the coming year and monitors whether or not they have been achieved in the past year. The University also has a well-formulated system for managing emerging weaknesses in performance (the Poor Occupational Performance Procedure) which applies to all staff except those in senior posts. As a result of agreements at the national level, the University is planning to introduce a revised job evaluation and career and reward structure with the specific goals of attracting staff of high calibre, particularly in shortage areas, and providing incentives for the continuous improvement for existing staff. This will begin to come into effect from August 2005.
119 On the basis of its discussions with members of staff throughout the audit, including its meetings with newly-appointed and mid-career staff in the DATs, the audit team came to the view that the University's arrangements for the appointment, appraisal and reward of staff, and particularly teaching staff, were sound and working satisfactorily. The team also considered that the evidence available to it indicated that Senate and the Council were able to monitor appointment and appraisal matters through the regular reports they received from HRC.
Assurance of the quality of teaching through staff support and development
120 The University takes the view that its teaching staff are self-managing professionals and its Staff Development Policy states that 'all staff are expected to take personal responsibility for their own development'. In support of this approach, the Staff Development Group produces a programme of training courses. A Staff Development Coordinator has responsibility for the overall coherence and the organisation of the delivery of a wide-ranging programme of topics which includes training for participation in staff recruitment procedures and there are sessions on the use of the University's VLE and on personal tutoring. The take-up of courses on the staff development programme is good: the statistics the University maintains on its staff development activities showed that over 50 per cent of all academic and non-academic staff attended at least one course in 2003-04. A record of attendance at courses is produced for each member of staff prior to their annual Personal Development Review (see below). Staff development and training for teaching in HE is supported by means of the University's Post Graduate Certificate in Professional Development (PCPD) (see below, paragraph 122).
121 The University has carefully considered how to make staff development opportunities available to its part-time hourly staff. In this connection, the audit team noted that the University provided for part-time staff to be paid for their participation in staff development activities. Other areas where staff development was contributing to the extension and/or renewal of the University's teaching and learning activities included arrangements to support staff entering new or more advanced areas of research activity and programmes to retrain staff to meet the changing demands in HE. In the material provided by the University to support the DATs the team found evidence of the widespread and effective use of away days for the development and sharing of good practice at school and divisional level. Likewise, information provided to support the DATs enabled the team to confirm the view expressed in the SED that peer observation of teaching was taking place, for example in the Division of Psychology, and that staff considered it provided useful peer support for teaching enhancement. Peer observation of teaching does not formally feed into the assessment of staff development needs.
122 The University offers a one-year training programme which leads to the award of a PCPD. Completion of the PCPD is required for all newly-appointed staff who have no teaching qualification, or who have been teaching for fewer than three years in HE. The programme is accredited by the Higher Education Academy. In each of the past two years, the PCPD has been delivered by the School of Education and Professional Development, where it forms part of a programme leading to the University's award of an MA in Professional Development (Higher Education Practice). While all members of the teaching staff are permitted to take single components from the PCPD, there is some tension between this provision and the emphasis of the School on delivering the full programme. The audit team considered that individual programme components within the MA have the potential to provide valuable resources for the continuing professional development of many members of the teaching staff and that it might be advantageous for the University to consider how it could encourage the School to provide more such individual components, rather than seeking to optimise the delivery of the full programme.
123 The University provides a training course for postgraduate research students who teach, the 'Teaching Assistant Preparation Programme', which is accredited by the Higher Education Academy. Again, attendance at this course is mandatory before research postgraduates are allowed to teach undergraduate and other students. The audit team discussed this training course with the postgraduate research students it met during the visit who confirmed that there was good support from the University in the development of their teaching skills.
124 Until 2003-04, the University operated a Teaching Fellowships scheme to support innovation in teaching. The University subsequently introduced a Teaching Awards Scheme, open to both academic and support staff, in order to reward excellence in teaching-related activity. Staff are also encouraged to apply for National Teaching Fellowships and there are financial incentives to encourage applications.
125 The IIP post-recognition review of the University had noted its scheme of 'merit awards' for particular achievements and suggested that there was a need to clarify the terms of these awards, while the more general survey carried out for the University by a private consultancy had also identified the need to improve internal communications. Members of the University told the audit team that the level of application for its various awards and schemes for teaching and innovation had been disappointingly low and that plans had been drawn up to address the matter. As a first step, the Vice-Chancellor had conducted a series of lunch time briefing meetings, and seminars on staff development opportunities and the University's award schemes have been organised by UTLC.
126 In addition to the Teaching Awards Scheme, the University has secured funding from the HEFCE TQEF to support staff in developing new projects. The audit team saw excellent examples of the way this had helped the introduction and sharing of good practice at a variety of levels, from the introduction for a trial period of ASTs in schools, to the development of a decision support chart, in the form of a mouse mat, to assist personal tutors to offer students guidance on how to contact the appropriate University's support services for their needs. In 2002, a Learning and Teaching Innovation Unit (LTIU) was created to promote innovative learning and teaching across the University. This does not contribute to the programme of training courses, but its primary function is to encourage and develop new initiatives in the schools through advice and guidance. Its current emphasis is on the development of e-learning in the University. It also has a role in increasing 'third stream' funding by offering external fee-paying clients access to its expertise.
127 While the University's Staff Development Policy emphasises the responsibilities of individual members of staff it also states that managers, at all levels of the University, have responsibilities for identifying staff development needs. Hence, Deans, Heads and Directors of support services are required to identify the staff development priorities in the area for which they are responsible and to evaluate their delivery, reporting on this in their annual planning submissions to the PRG. PRG reports to the PRC which, like the HRC reports to Council. Not all the submissions seen by the audit team shared the conscientious approach of the most effective, but evidence from the DATs and elsewhere indicated that the University's arrangements for identifying and meeting staff development needs were generally working well.
128 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University's arrangements for the assurance of the quality of its teaching through staff support and development were broadly effective although, at present, the absence of a clear route for information on staff development activities and staff development needs to come to Senate does not assist the latter to maintain a clear and strategic overview of how its staff development activities are assisting the University to achieve its broader aims. The team encourages the University to consider how Senate and Council might be assisted to secure a clearer and more strategic understanding of the contribution its staff development activities are making to the achievement of its policies and its strategic objectives.
Assurance of the quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
129 The University has developed procedures for validating, approving and monitoring programmes and pathways offered through distance learning (DL). These follow the procedures for university-level validations of programmes and pathways, with some additions. For example, where a validation and approval event involves DL, the purpose of the validation is to establish that the proposed programme can be delivered through DL, and that the proposing school has the resources and expertise to support the programme and the students who will enrol on it. In addition to the normal documentation required for a university-level validation, therefore, proposers of a programme or pathway to be delivered through DL are expected to submit descriptions of the learning materials which will be provided for students; details of the means of delivery, including implications for access to information technology and other equipment for students; the arrangements that have been, or will be, made for providing feedback to students; how students will be able to communicate with members of staff at the University; what staff development will be provided to support the production and updating of DL materials; and requirements within the University for hardware and software, and for additional technical and administrative support staff. The proposers are also required to produce a draft student handbook. These procedures appeared to the audit team to be robust.
130 For DL programmes and pathways the process of annual evaluation conforms to the University's general arrangements, with the addition to the standard form of a section in which concerns specific to DL delivery must be discussed. The annual evaluation report for a DL programme will be considered by the supporting school with other programmes and pathways at its annual evaluation meeting.
131 In 2002 the University established a LTIU, the main function of which is to promote innovations in teaching and learning with a particular focus on e-learning. The SED offered the view that the LTIU was proving to be a more effective means of supporting work in the schools than the previous, more centralised, arrangements (although the grounds on which this judgement rested were not clear to the audit team) but indicated that, for the future, it intended to use management information more effectively to 'monitor the quality and standards of its e-learning activities'.
132 The University is making increasing use of a proprietary VLE to support learning, and the audit team learned from students in the DATs that most modules were supported through the VLE (see below, paragraph 137). In general the students who met the team found this support valuable. While noting the steady progress being made in continuing to extend the use of the VLE by staff and students the team also observed that the University had yet to develop means to monitor or enhance the quality of the learning materials made available to students through the VLE. The University may wish to consider the desirability of taking further the observations in its SED on its e-learning, and particularly its quality management arrangements for e-learning provision.
133 The SED indicated that there has been substantial growth (more than 300 per cent) in the number of students enrolled on the University's programmes and pathways through its ODUPLUS and that there had also been considerable growth in the number of students studying through distributed learning. The present audit did not consider ODUPLUS or distributed learning provision which will form part of the collaborative provision audit.
Learning support resources
134 Learning support is provided to the University's students through the teaching staff, and particularly personal tutors (see below paragraph 154 et. seq.), pastoral support services (see below, paragraph 157) specialised student support services offered centrally (see below, paragraph 162) and through the University's unified Computing and Library Services Services which were merged in 2001.
135 The main Library and Computing Centre is based on the central Queensgate Campus and is supplemented by other school-based learning resources such as the Music Library. Since 2000 the University has invested considerable sums in the main centre and there is provision for further investment in its computing networks. The University uses information available to it from the Society of College, National and University Libraries, to benchmark its expenditure on its library provision.
136 It is the University's view that its strengths in providing learning support resources rest on the effective exploitation of information and communication technology (ICT), including its investment in on-line information sources; its promotion of a strong 'customer' focus; its responsiveness to the needs of its users; its good opening hours and the effectiveness of the training it provides in information skills. In its Library and Computing Centre the University has adopted an interesting approach to providing support for schools and subjects: the Centre is divided into subject floors 'corresponding to the major academic areas within the University. Each subject floor aims to provide the computing facilities, electronic information and printed information relevant to the disciplines it services, together with the skilled support necessary for users to make effective use of the facilities'.
137 Pedagogic support for using the VLE is provided by the LTIU and technical support is provided in the schools by designated learning technology advisers. The audit team discussed the University's draft e-learning strategy with members of the LTIU and other staff throughout the visit. The draft strategy seeks to integrate developments in the use of the University's VLE, and its website and to address new developments such as wireless network access. The framework on which the draft strategy is mapped is that developed by the national Joint Information Systems Committee and the team saw the comprehensive nature of the draft strategy as a feature of good practice.
138 The University employs a number of means to ensure that the development of Library Services and Computing Services continues to meet its strategic needs, including regular surveys of the views of users. Additionally, as part of the University's annual planning round, each arm of the merged Services is required to provide an annual plan to PRG, which forwards them to the PRC. Service support for programmes and pathways is regularly discussed in each of the University's internal periodic reviews, and through their annual evaluation reports schools provide regular information to UTLC on how the Services support their provision and students. Through the documents provided by the University to support the DATs the audit team was able to confirm that internal reviews regularly assessed how learning resources matched the needs of teaching and learning.
139 The SWS stated that students were generally content with their access to learning resources and that they warmly appreciated the computing facilities available to them. Although the audit team heard some expressions of criticism from particular groups of students, concerning access to specialist software and PCs, these were exceptions. The surveys conducted by the Students' Union to support the audit had identified some concerns with aspects of the management of the library lending, such as loan periods and the availability of core texts at peak times on large modules. In the course of the visit, however, many students spoke enthusiastically of the ready access they enjoyed to the Library's extensive on-line journal and book collections.
140 Overall, students who met the audit team expressed their satisfaction with the learning resources available to them and were particularly appreciative of the opportunities provided by their access to the VLE. The section of the SED which described the University's learning support resources offered a clear and helpful description of these arrangements and indicated its view that it was responsive to users' needs as shown by its expansion of provision where this was seen to be necessary. Through its discussions with staff and students, particularly in the DATs, the team was able to confirm that this was the case, and that the University had developed satisfactory means to monitor the capacity of its Computing and Library Services to meet the needs of its users.
Academic guidance, support and supervision
141 In 2003, and in support of its approach to widening participation in HE, the University adopted a new admissions policy which marked a change in its overall approach to assessing applicants from emphasis on formal qualifications to their 'capacity to benefit' from HE. The University has adopted a holistic approach to supporting widening participation and is seeking to work with schools in its region to offer encouragement to pupils who might not otherwise consider entering HE. As an example of the steps it was taking, members of the University told the audit team about the 'treasure hunts' organised in the Library to help year 10 school children feel more at ease with the idea of being at a University.
142 The SED noted that 'in the context of Widening Participation students require more and different types of support than was the case with the different selection criteria used in the past', and in recognition of this and its need to improve the retention of its students, changes had been made to the University's student support and guidance arrangements, to the structure of its academic year (the shift from semesters to terms noted in paragraph 7, above) and to assessment arrangements (see paragraph 35). To support tutors in the schools in administering the details of its new approach to student admissions the University provides training courses for admissions tutors and there is an admissions tutors' 'forum', through which information and good practice can be shared.
143 As noted elsewhere in this report, admission and retention of students are monitored through ASIS reports and through annual evaluations (see above, paragraph 109). In the course of the DATs the audit team asked students to describe their experiences of their induction to the University and their programme or pathway of study. Students told the team that, in general, their inductions had provided a satisfactory introduction to their studies at the University and noted the contribution of the Students' Union in providing support and briefings for newly arrived students.
144 The University takes the view that one of the consequences of espousing widening participation is that it needs to be alert to the different levels of support particular groups of students may need. For example, where it is necessary for HND and degree students to be taught together, the University usually provides additional tutorial support for the HND cohort; again, as part of its support for students in their first year of studies, the University makes provision for formative assessment to enable early and continuing feedback to students on their performance, with provision for tutor reassessment to provide students with an early opportunity to rework and re-present work that has initially been judged unsatisfactory (see above, paragraph 35). A further component in the University's approach to support widening participation is the operation of a clear attendance policy for students. This latter policy is designed to ensure that if students fail to attend lectures or submit assignments they are rapidly contacted, in most cases through mobile phone text messages.
145 One of the University's key procedures for providing academic support and guidance to first-year undergraduates is its arrangement for ASTs. The University has appointed at least one AST in each school and their responsibilities include providing support to students with generic deficits (that is, deficits not related to a particular subject area). Such deficits are identified on entry to the University through 'academic skills audits' undertaken with each student, using a standard diagnostic questionnaire. Completed questionnaires are used to develop 'individual learning plans' for each student, and students also have access to a key skills module for further support. The work of the ASTs had been supported by funds from the TQEF.
146 The University provided the audit team with an internal report on the work of the ASTs compiled in June 2004 and the results of a student questionnaire survey. The former showed that the use made by students of AST support had increased substantially from 2002-03 to 2003-04, that women students had made most use of the support offered by the ASTs, and that the most common areas addressed were referencing skills and skills in structuring essays. The University's internal evaluation of the AST system concluded that the service was highly valued and a major contributor to retaining students at the University; the team had no reason to dissent from this finding. Information from completed student questionnaires which were seen by the team indicated that a contributory factor in the notable success of the AST scheme is that it has increased the frequency of contacts between members of the teaching staff and first-year students as they adjust to working in HE, and that it has the capacity to improve the confidence of some first-year students who might otherwise not thrive. Overall, it seemed to the team that the University's development of its AST scheme represented a feature of good practice, as did its induction arrangements for new students.
147 In addition to the support they received from ASTs, students also receive academic support through the University's personal tutor arrangements. Each student is allocated to a personal tutor and individual students can opt to work on the development of their academic skills with their personal tutor rather than with an AST. For most undergraduate students, their final year of study includes a dissertation. Where this is the case, schools generally appoint a 'dissertation tutor' who will also act as a personal tutor for such final-year students.
148 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University had devoted considerable care to identifying and meeting the needs of its students when designing and implementing its teaching, learning and assessment arrangements and that, in the context of the institution, this constituted a feature of good practice.
Academic guidance support and supervision for postgraduate research students
149 The University's Research Committee is responsible for monitoring the learning experiences of approximately 400 students following research programmes. An appendix to the SED stated that the University's arrangements for postgraduate research students and their supervision were consistent with the advice of the Code of practice and that this had been broadly confirmed by the work of a subcommittee of the Research Committee, in June 1999. The subcommittee had found that while the University's arrangements for its research postgraduates were generally consistent with the precepts of the Code, some further action was nonetheless required. At the time of the audit the University was reviewing its arrangements for postgraduate research students in light of the review recently undertaken by QAA of the Code, Section 1: Postgraduate research. The audit team noted there was little evaluation in the SED of the experience of the University's research postgraduates and therefore took care to understand how they were being supported.
150 The framework for the recruitment, supervision and examination of research students, and for monitoring their progress, is set out in the University's 'Information and Guidance for School Research Degrees Committees'. The University also makes available a 'good practice' guide for supervisors and students. Research students are supported through their allocation to a supervisory team, an arrangement which the audit team considered would ensure continuity of support and supervision in the event of any staffing changes. In addition, each research student is also allocated to a supervisory team and to a personal tutor. Additionally, in some areas, such as psychology, the supervisory team will include representatives from a number of disciplines and they are supported by a designated school-based postgraduate tutor. In this particular instance, the team learnt that postgraduate research students were treated on the same basis as junior members of staff: they have access to staff development courses and enjoy opportunities to attend and make presentations at relevant conferences.
151 All intending research students, except those who can provide evidence of having completed a suitable master's level degree, are required by the University to register initially for an MPhil. There is a process of transfer to PhD registration which is based on the submission by the student of a 'transfer report' which is appraised by at least two referees. The audit team considered this process to be robust. All research students are required to make an annual report of their achievements to the school's research degrees committee and the University's Research Committee.
152 The audit team met research postgraduate students in several meetings throughout the visit. Without exception, they expressed enthusiasm for the supervisory arrangements, library and ICT resources to which they had access. Additionally, research students in the sciences expressed their satisfaction with the laboratory provision available to them. Overall, the team considered that the University's arrangements to monitor and support the learning experience of its research postgraduate students constituted a feature of good practice, more particularly, its requirements for all postgraduates to have both a research supervisor and a personal tutor, for all postgraduates intending to undertake teaching duties to attend a course on teaching (see above, paragraph 123), and its arrangements for monitoring the progress of postgraduates.
Personal support and guidance
153 The University is continuing to strengthen its personal tutor arrangements, not least in order to improve student retention and completion. The audit team noted that the SWS had commented critically on some aspects of the University's personal tutor arrangements and on variations in the ways in which individual personal tutors perform their roles. For this reason, the team paid particular attention to the University's arrangements for student support through personal tutors and centrally provided services.
154 The SED described the work the University has undertaken (funded in part through TQEF) to develop its personal tutor arrangements. This has included the development of a job description for personal tutors and the provision of guidance for individuals carrying out the role. In addition, TQEF funds were also being used to develop student peer mentoring, personal development planning (PDP), and support for students with disabilities (see below, paragraph 161).
155 The University expects each personal tutor to conduct a weekly meeting with each of their first-year tutees and to meet five times throughout the session with their second-year tutees. In the final year, when a project or dissertation tutor assumes the role of personal tutor, there is an expectation that meetings will be 'regular'. The audit team discussed with students their experience of meeting their personal tutors. Overwhelmingly, students commented on the positive developments in the University's personal tutor arrangements in recent years. The team noted that the University was developing performance indicators for its personal tutor arrangements and came to the view, overall, that the weaknesses identified in personal tutoring arrangements in the 2001 report had been satisfactorily addressed and that the University's current personal tutor arrangements constituted in many ways a feature of good practice.
156 Students with need for support over and above that which can be provided through personal tutors may be referred, or refer themselves, to the University's centrally provided Student Services. The work of these Services was described in the 2001 report and the description in the SED indicated that they continue to include: Student Welfare Support, Disability Support, Careers Advisory Service, the Job Shop, the Chaplaincy, the Sport and Recreation Service, International Students Support, Student Harassment Advice, Family Liaison, and the Counselling Service. The Services also provide direct support and advice to members of staff for example in dealing with mental health issues. The SED stated that the University considers that it needs to provide high levels of personal support for its students because it recruits a greater than average proportion of mature students and those from disadvantaged social groups.
157 The development of Student Services is directed by its annual plan which is sent to PRG, and the Services report through PRG to the PRC and to Senate. In addition, a joint committee of Senate and Council, the Student Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a lay member of Council, has a wide remit to keep under review the effectiveness of provision for student support in the University and through the Students' Union. The Student Affairs Committee meets three times each year and considers a wide range of academic and learning and personal support matters, such as the project for the development of the personal tutor role referred to in paragraph 154 above, estates, including the construction of the new Students' Union building, and procedural matters, such as revisions to the student complaints procedures. Matters of concern to students such as indebtedness and the introduction of differential fees have also been brought before the Committee.
158 Individual student services are reviewed at approximately five-yearly intervals by independent panels. These have external representation and report through UTLC to Senate. Review panels meet managers, front-line staff, management, staff, and users and view facilities. The report of such a review will usually offer recommendations and the relevant service must report to UTLC on actions taken in response to the findings within six months.
159 The University provided the audit team with the Student Services Annual Plan for 2004-05. This had reviewed the Services' activities for 2003-04 and its findings emphasised the improvements that had been made to the quality of the provision. Among the developments reported was the use of questionnaires in learning support, and a new client database for logging case notes and tracking student enquiries relating to disability and welfare cases. The Annual Plan papers also included a review of responses to questionnaires for users of the services, comments on the contribution that the Services had made to supporting the University's approaches to widening participation and employability, and noted contacts between careers service and staff in the schools supporting placements. The SWS indicated the view of students that the Student Services were not succeeding in marketing themselves as actively as they might. The team was told that developments were in hand to tackle this matter and to develop outcomes and performance indicators for personal tutors. The Annual Plan also noted several other developments being taken forward by the Services, including the introduction of a Family Liaison Officer, of an appointments system for overseas students to ensure their access to support, and the increasing number of disabled students registered for study with the University.
160 The 2001 report noted the University's awareness that 'the provision of services for students presents particular challenges for the future' and particularly in the area of compliance with disability legislation (SENDA) and student finance. The evidence available to the audit team suggested that since the publication of the 2001 report, considerable work had been undertaken by the University and its schools to enable it to meet the requirements of SENDA. For example, the University has conducted accessibility and curriculum audits, and identified disability coordinators in the schools who are responsible for ensuring that the requirements of SENDA are met and that the advice of the Code of practice is heeded.
161 The University has established a Disability Team in which is included a Support Workers' Service. The Disability Team arranges needs assessments and provides support to schools and departments. The University has also established a Disability Forum, with representatives from each school and the Students Union. Reports from the Forum are sent to the University's Equal Opportunities and Diversity Committee and, by way of Human Resources, to Council and Senate. The audit team noted that the Services Annual Plan for 2003-04 had stated that the University's arrangements for disability support met the requirements of the SENDA and were consistent with the recommendations of the Code of practice, a view with which the team had no reason to disagree. At the time of the audit the University was planning to take further its support for disabled students and their support workers, and a review of this area of the Services work was planned for April 2005. Students with experience of these aspects of the University's support arrangements told the team that they were satisfied that the University was ready to respond flexibly to the needs of students with disabilities.
162 The Careers Advisory Service offers an accredited careers management module (which has been credit rated by three schools) and supports PDP as it is introduced across the University. The Careers Advisory Service operates in every school within the University, which has set a target of having 75 per cent of its students experience a period of work placement and achieving a minimum of 10 Shell Technology Enterprise Programme placements each year. The Careers Advisory Service achieved the national standard for advice, information and guidance workers (the 'Matrix Standard') in 2003, and the Service considers that its arrangements are consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice. The audit team had no reason to dissent from this view.
163 The Service supports an annual Careers Fair, regular presentations by employers, and also features a Job Shop: a service through which students can seek access to local part-time and seasonal work with the institution's support and involvement, and develop employment and interview skills. Members of the University also maintain contacts with employers through visits to students on work placements. The University's view of employability is that it is a transferable skill and it has begun to consider how this can be embedded in the curriculum.
164 Across the University, PDP was introduced in 2004-05 for first-year undergraduates with the expectation that all students will be engaged in developing PDP and constructing progress files by the commencement of the 2005-06 session. The audit team noted that in Music, the subject area had chosen to continue with learning journals as reflective journals although how this would link with the overall PDP scheme and progress files was not clear.
165 The SED states the University's view that the arrangements it has made to monitor the work of its central services particularly, in this context, Student Services, ensures that they are responsive to the needs of students. Reviewing the arrangement for the submission of the Services' Annual Plan and review arrangements for the individual Services, together with the monitoring role adopted by the joint Student Affairs Committee of Senate and Council, the audit team came to the view that the University was maintaining a close eye on the work of the Services and that many aspects of their work represented features of good practice, particularly in the clear focus the University and its Student Services have maintained on identifying and meeting the needs of students.
Collaborative provision
166 The University's partnership provision including its participation in consortia will be the subject of a future audit.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails and thematic enquiries
Discipline audit trails
167 In each of the selected DATs, relevant members of the team met staff and students to discuss the programmes, studied a sample of assessed student work, saw examples of learning resource materials, and studied annual module and programme reports and periodic school reviews relating to the programmes. Their findings in respect of the academic standards of awards are as follows.
Accounting
168 The scope of the DAT included programmes and pathways leading to the following awards: BA (Hons) Accountancy and Finance (full-time and sandwich mode); MA in Accounting and Finance; and full-time and part-time programmes of study leading to awards of the ACCA.
169 All the provision considered within the DAT is located in the Department of Accounting (the Department) which is itself part of the HUBS. The MA programme was validated and approved in summer 2003 and was first offered to students in 2003-04. As well as leading to the University's MA award the programme provides an opportunity for students to prepare for the final level of the ACCA external examinations. The provision which leads to ACCA awards prepares students for all levels of its external examinations, the six final-level subjects being offered in conjunction with the MA.
170 The BA (Hons) Accountancy and Finance forms the major component of a suite of modular pathways within the Department which also offers pathways leading to honours degree awards in accounting with law, with management, and with information systems. The suite follows a broadly common first year of study, which allows for transfers between programmes and pathways after successful completion of the first year of study. The award of BA (Hons) Accounting and Finance carries significant exemptions from the professional examinations of ACCA and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. The Department's standing with ACCA is evident in the latter's designation of it as having 'ACCA Premier College Status'.
171 The DSED provided information on all the programmes and pathways offered within the Department, but in order to be able to give proper consideration to the provision the DAT concentrated on the Accountancy programmes. The Department participated in a University subject review in March 2004 and the self-evaluation prepared for that exercise formed the basis of the DSED provided to support the DAT. The internal subject review had been carried out following the standard University practice. It had been chaired by a Dean from another school and the membership of the panel had included academic and professional external members. The audit team considered that the documents which had been provided to support this internal subject review had been complete and self-evaluative. The subject review process had made several recommendations which had subsequently been addressed through the normal annual review process.
172 Programme specifications for both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and pathways were made available to the audit team. The specifications for the undergraduate programmes and pathways explicitly linked intended learning outcomes with those of the Subject benchmark statement for accounting. There is no subject benchmark statement for taught postgraduate programmes in accountancy but in the view of the team the learning outcomes presented for that programme are appropriate for a master's award. Both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes are consistent with the advice offered by the FHEQ. As the ACCA provision prepares students for an external examination and not a University award, the team learned that it had not been considered to be subject to the University's normal quality assurance processes and no programme specification had been prepared (see below).
173 Information on student progression for both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes is included in the annual monitoring reports the Department provides to HUBS. In addition, undergraduate module pass rates are included within the Subject Area Annual Report for Accounting. Value added and student retention data sets are considered by the Department and HUBS.
174 The audit team was provided with the annual reports which contained the data routinely collected and used by the Department and HUBS to monitor progression and completion year on year. It was able to confirm that progression data was regularly used to identify matters requiring attention and opportunities for development and enhancement, and that information on the class of degree awarded was also regularly monitored. The team was satisfied that the Department and HUBS were able to track the performance of students and to provide information to support individuals seeking to transfer from accounting to other programmes, or to suspend their studies. The team was also able to confirm that outcomes for accounting modules contributing to the suite of undergraduate pathways and programmes were also considered by the annual Accounting subject area report, in which pass rates for modules are considered, together with outcomes from the analysis of student feedback in the form of responses to module questionnaires and module reports. These sources of information provide a sound basis for discussion and the formulation of annual action plans for the following session.
175 The MA in Accounting and Finance was first offered in 2003-04, when it enrolled 10 students on all levels. As with the undergraduate pathways, the audit team was able to confirm that the Department and HUBS collected and analysed progression and completion information for presentation in the annual evaluation of the pathway. With respect to the ACCA provision, the Department provides tuition for modules (papers) that are set by that professional body. ACCA uses a credit accumulation model but, in this instance, the notion of progression is not applicable. The pass rates for each paper are available, however, and can be compared to the entire population of candidates taking the particular examination. The team was provided with data for the June 2004 diet of ACCA assessments. On the basis of the pass rate which had been achieved on that occasion ACCA had confirmed the Department's and the University's status as an 'ACCA Premier College'. Overall, the team was able to confirm that for all the provision considered within the DAT progression and completion data (where applicable) was available and used by the Department and HUBS to monitor quality and academic standards.
176 The annual evaluation process for the pathways/programmes leading to the University's awards follows University procedures and there is evidence that the reports documents provide a basis for corrective and enhancing actions from year to year and that the documents are submitted to Departmental and HUBS. On the basis of the papers and information it saw, the audit team came to the view that that the Department's internal monitoring of its undergraduate provision and the MA is robust.
177 Annual evaluation of the provision which leads to ACCA awards differs from that described above. It is the University's view that because the provision is not accommodated in its own credit accumulation scheme, and the learning outcomes are set by ACCA, the provision lies outwith its own quality arrangements. The audit team discussed this matter with members of the University in the course of the DAT and, while noting the University's position, advises it to work with the Department and HUBS to bring the provision fully into the University's own annual and periodic arrangements for monitoring and review (see above, paragraph 56).
178 The Department considers that reports by the external examiners for the undergraduate and taught postgraduate degree programmes provide it with key inputs into its annual monitoring and review processes. The audit team found evidence that elements within the external examiners' reports were summarised and cited in the course reviews, and that relevant actions had been taken to ensure that their recommendations had been given full consideration. Recent reports by external examiners, which were seen by the team, included positive and supportive comments on the provision and student assessments and included explicit statements on the comparability of the academic standards being achieved, together with approving comments on assessment processes, the curriculum and the student experience.
179 The assessment strategies and policies operating within the programmes/pathways which lead to the University's awards reflect the requirements of the revised University assessment strategy, in that all modules are now rated at 20 credit points, there is provision for formative assessment, there is evidence of tutor re-assessment and arrangements for resit referral/deferral examinations commencing in June have been made. The strategy and policies developed by the University do not fully apply to the ACCA course but in the case of formative assessment there is provision for mock examinations, class tests and revision questions. Accounting students who met the audit team in the DAT were able to confirm that the feedback they receive on their written and other work was generally informative, developmental and timely. Some were of the opinion, however, that the tutor re-assessment process which the University has introduced may lead to delays in the return of marked and annotated coursework (see above, paragraph 35). Overall, the team was able to confirm that the Department's assessment arrangements for the programmes/pathways which lead to the University's awards are consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students.
180 The audit team had the opportunity to examine samples of assessed student work for the University's undergraduate and taught postgraduate degree programmes identical in character to those which had been provided to external examiners in 2003-04. Examples of students assessed and formative work associated with the ACCA provision was not made available to the team for its consideration. The examples of assessed student work linked to the undergraduate programmes all demonstrated a clear alignment of learning outcomes to the module learning outcomes and the assessment instruments. All the summative assessments which were considered by the team had been annotated, and were accompanied by a feedback sheet to assist students. There was evidence of internal moderation of student coursework and examination scripts. There was also evidence that marks awarded had been moderated by the external examiners in the form of their signatures on the module marks sheets for both elements of assessment. The team was able to confirm the external examiners' view that the assessed student work matched the expectations of the programme specifications and module specification documents. It was also able to confirm that the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
181 The Department provided the audit team with samples of the materials it makes available to students, including course and module handbooks. Students told the team that they considered these documents relevant to their needs and informative. Reviewing this information the team noted instances of excellent handbooks, the contents of which included programme specifications, module specifications and assessment details linked to intended learning outcomes. The team noted with interest that the information the Department provides for its students makes plain the responsibilities of the latter regarding their study requirements by means of a 'partnership statement'. Additionally, the team was informed that all accounting students were issued with the Raspberry Book which contained the assessment regulations. Students told the team that while the Raspberry Book was useful, it was only needed for reference, as the learning and assessment expectations of their programmes and their constituent modules were made explicit in other documents. The ACCA booklet and booklets for individual ACCA modules (papers) did not include learning outcomes but did provide teaching schemes and additional materials in support of the learning process towards the externally set examination papers.
182 Students who met the audit team stated that they considered the learning resources available to them to be adequate and that they matched the needs of the accountancy programmes. Students spoke warmly of the library support available to them in terms of the book stock, data bases and the helpful manner in which librarians guided them through research processes. Accountancy students observed that there was some unevenness of support for the University's VLE across staff in the Department, while noting that a majority of accountancy modules was nonetheless supported through the VLE. Overall, students considered that they benefited from a helpful and supportive learning environment in which a principal element was the approachability, consideration and support of their tutors. The open-door policy operated by many staff in the Department was particularly welcome. The team noted that the minutes of the SSLCs it saw contained positive statements by students on their learning experiences and the learning resources available to them.
183 The Department has hitherto gathered feedback from students through mid-module, end-module, and annual evaluation questionnaires, and SSLC meetings held at least twice each year. The student panel arrangements operated from September 2004 have been accompanied by a reduction in the number of questionnaires, with only the year and course questionnaire retained. As noted elsewhere in this report the changes made reflect the shift in emphasis from the module to the programme in support of the University's revised approach to teaching, learning and assessment. It occurred to the audit team that this shift in emphasis may lose some of the richness of the student feedback formerly collected at the module level. Members of Accountancy staff told the team that they had recently convened a student panel meeting which had followed the University's standard agenda template. On balance, they considered that the new arrangements did not detract from the process of consultation and discussion with the students, although there are some concerns that too strict adherence to the template might prove counterproductive.
184 Students with whom the audit team discussed the Department's approach to gathering feedback and consulting their views considered that the dialogue between staff and students was excellent, and that they could identify actions which had followed such consultations. Instances cited to the team included changes to teaching styles, the additional supply of learning support documents and the recognition for the need of essay writing skill support. A student representative on the HUBS Board told the team how he had participated in its quality management work.
185 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the quality of learning opportunities are suitable for the provision leading to the awards listed in paragraph 168 above.
Business Studies
186 The scope of the DAT included programmes and pathways leading to the following awards: BA (Hons) Business Studies (full-time, sandwich); BA (Hons) Business Studies (part-time); BA (Hons) Business Studies and Psychology (full-time, sandwich); and HNC Business and Management. The BA (Hons) Business Studies (full-time, sandwich) is the largest of the programmes with nearly 200 students. The Department of Business Studies also offers several master's programmes and research degrees which were not directly scrutinised in the DAT. Business studies provision is offered through the Department of Business Studies (the Department) which itself is located within HUBS.
187 The programme specifications which were provided with the DSED for the BA (Hons) Business Studies covered the following pathways: Business Studies; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Route; Business Studies with Environmental Management; International Business, Business Information Management; Entrepreneurship and Business; and Combined Studies (Business). A second programme specification related to the HNC in Business and Management. The provision which formed the focus of the DAT had not been subject to a recent internal subject review and a DSED was therefore specially prepared to support the DAT.
188 The intended learning outcomes for the three pathways leading to the BA (Hons) Business Studies were said to have been developed in the light of the Subject benchmark statement for general business and management, and the FHEQ, published by QAA, and to comply with the requirements of various professional bodies. For example, the programme specification for the HNC in Business and Management states that it conforms to the Subject benchmark statement and has appropriate matching to those on the full-time degree and BTEC/Edexcel Guidelines and it seeks to demonstrate the links between modules on year one and year two and BTEC/Edexcel weightings. The programme specification provided for the BA (Hons) Business and Psychology stated that its contents were consistent with the Subject benchmark statements for general business and management, and for psychology, and that the learning outcomes had been mapped against their recommendations.
189 The annual reports prepared by programme and pathway leaders contain progression and retention information and there was clear evidence that this is used by the Department and HUBS to analyse particular occurrences and look for trends. The DSED drew attention to an instance in 2002 where retention and progression on a particular programme had dipped and pointed the audit team to the subsequent analysis that had been conducted to identify potential causes and suggest remedies. The latter had included the development of a new student management information system which was being piloted at the time of the audit. The team was not able to establish whether the data to populate this system had been downloaded from ASIS, or collected independently; it was, however, able to confirm that the Department and the School were using progression and completion data in monitoring and managing provision, chiefly through the annual evaluation process, which appeared to work well, and that they were providing added value and other data to the University in line with the latter's requirements.
190 In addition to annual evaluation reports the Department also produces an overall subject report which reflects on progress at the level of the module across the provision. The subject report for 2003-04, together with follow-up papers, demonstrated that the report was being used to monitor student performance. For example, evidence on the poor performance of overseas students in one module had been used to bring about its modification. The evidence available to the audit team confirmed that action points were identified from reports by the HUBS Evaluation Committee and conscientiously followed up.
191 Recent external examiners' reports were provided by the University to support the DAT. They endorsed the academic standards of the relevant awards and confirmed that internal moderation of marking was taking place, but there were also comments in several that a complete set of marks had not been available at assessment boards and that, in some instances, external examiners had not had access to assignment briefs or marking guidelines. The audit team also noted that Edexcel's annual report had stated that marks had not been available in some instances for the relevant assessment board and that insufficient time had been allowed between the completion of the examinations and the meeting of the board, and that this had occurred in successive years. The team found similar comments in some external examiners' reports relating to the undergraduate provision. The team encourages the University to work with the Department to ensure that matters raised by external examiners are addressed promptly and thoroughly.
192 The University provides each head of department with copies of the external examiners' reports which relate to programmes and pathways the department offers. The examples for Business Studies seen by the audit team had been considered systematically as part of the annual evaluation process. The annual evaluation report also includes a detailed response to the programme feedback from external examiners. Feedback to external examiners on action taken to address their comments takes place as part of the annual report preparation process, and also after the School's Evaluation Committee has met. The summary for the 2004 evaluation prepared by the Dean of HUBS noted some areas where comments by external examiners in previous reports had not been addressed. While the thoroughness and frankness of the Dean's report and the work of the Evaluation Committee are reassuring it would now be timely for the University and HUBS to enquire into and remedy the lapses highlighted by the Dean's report.
193 In one of the reports from external examiners it read, the audit team noted advice that a more formal approach to the deferment of student deadlines should be considered. Elsewhere, the team noted a comment and recommendation in a report from the CIPD to the effect that the course team should formalise and document its internal moderation process to provide clearer evidence of the marking process and outcomes.
194 The assessment arrangements operated by the Department follow the pattern set by the University, the HUBS tariff for assessment and the HUBS Assessment Guidelines, which are published in the HUBS Staff Handbook. All level 1 modules now use formative assessment in line with University policy. It is HUBS policy that numerical marks rather than alphabetical grades should be used; however, the samples of student work seen by the team contained many examples of alphabetical grades, not always with a percentage. The team noted, however, there were no statements of assessment criteria in the sample of module descriptors, and module handbooks, it saw or in the HUBS Student Handbook as advised in the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students. The team encourages the Department and HUBS to ensure that module and other handbooks include clear statements of assessment criteria.
195 The audit team found that the Department was making use of a wide range of assessment methods, a number of which enabled the assessment of both skills and knowledge. The team reviewed a wide sample of assessed student work, demonstrating achievement across the range of marks although it was not able to refer to assignment briefs, or module handbooks with assessment criteria. The assessed work seen by the team matched the expectations set out in the programme specifications and on the basis of this evidence, and the external examiners' reports, the team considered that the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the titles of the awards sampled and their location within the FHEQ.
196 Students who met the audit team in the DAT considered that they had clear information on grading criteria used for their work and that pieces of assessed work were returned promptly. The Department uses a variety of well-structured standard forms to provide feedback on their assessments to students and the team noted that the strength of these arrangements had been highlighted in feedback to the University from Edexcel on assessment arrangements for the HNC programme.
197 Copies of the student Handbooks for Business Studies (sandwich, full and part-time) were made available in the materials provided to support the DAT. The Handbooks included sections on the structure of the programmes, student attendance, referencing, essay writing, the dissertation, and plagiarism. There was, however, no guidance on assessment criteria although advice on grading criteria and the equivalence between grades and percentages was included. Students were generally satisfied with the accuracy of the information in the Undergraduate Prospectus although some considered that the demands of the mathematics components in the programmes/pathways were more than might have been expected from the Prospectus.
198 In their meetings with the audit team students were asked to comment on the learning resources available to them. They indicated that they were generally satisfied with the quality of the teaching they experienced and noted that staff research informed teaching in specialised areas and that some staff were able to call on recent business experience to make learning and examples more relevant. There were no adverse comments about ICT provision and students were generally satisfied with the support they were able to draw on from the VLE. The team saw some critical comments on the book stock in the library, but noted that these were coupled with praise for the helpfulness of library staff.
199 The Department has established good working relations with the professional bodies associated with its provision, to the benefit of students. For example, the Department has achieved CIPD accreditation, and the audit team found evidence that the CIPD considered there were sound links between the University and its local branch.
200 Students commented favourably to the audit team on the personal tutor and AST arrangements, which are in line with the University's expectations. None of the students who met the team in the DAT, however, appeared to have made use of AST support, although they were able to confirm that PDP had been introduced for first-year students. Final-year students indicated that they had found the support offered by the Careers Service useful.
201 The audit team was able to confirm that the Department gathers feedback information from its students through questionnaires at module and programme level, although it was not clear from the material available to the team how this information contributed to the management and enhancement of the provision.
202 Student panels have only recently replaced SSLCs, but the minutes of the latter provided evidence of the workings of the Department's formal representation arrangements with students. The examples of SSLC papers seen by the team varied in format and reporting style and frequently failed to include references to the agreement of earlier minutes and action points. The introduction of more formal standard agendas for the new student panels may be helpful here.
203 Students told the audit team that their elected class representatives had kept them informed of outcomes from SSLC meetings and that they were confident that the meetings have the capacity to bring about changes. The papers from SSLCs provided for the team indicated that meetings discussed significant matters such as the restructuring of the session and its impact on continuing students, methods for the calculation of degree classifications and changes to the pattern of options on offer. The team was advised by a student representative it met in the DAT that training for their role had been provided. It was also told that part-time students shared information readily and that the Department generally kept part-time students informed of developments by email. There was also persuasive evidence that members of staff made themselves readily available to part-time students.
204 Overall, the audit team found the quality of learning opportunities to be suitable for programmes leading to the award titles listed in paragraph 186, above.
Chemistry
205 The scope of the DAT comprised pathways and programmes leading to the following awards: 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 and Analytical Science; HND in Chemistry, Chemistry with Forensic Science and Pharmaceutical Chemistry; PhD in Chemical Sciences, Biosciences and Materials (all full-time). The scope of the DAT also included the following part-time programmes and pathways leading to awards of: HNC and BSc (Hons) in Chemistry; MSc in Analytical Chemistry; PhD in Chemical Sciences, Biosciences and Materials. The teaching of Chemistry is the responsibility of the Division of Chemical Sciences, which is located within the Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, itself a part of the School of Applied Sciences.
206 The MChem courses are accredited by the Royal Society of Chemistry; the other BSc (Hons) awards are recognised by the Society. Typically there are 300 undergraduates and 40 postgraduates on these programmes/pathways. The sub-degree programmes were not included in the scope of the DAT, although they place responsibilities on the staff and act as feeders to the degree programmes.
207 The DSED provided to support the DAT had been developed from the document used to support the University's recent subject review of Chemistry (see below). A full set of programme specifications was provided for all the provision in Chemistry included in the DAT. These linked the aims and intended learning outcomes to the core and option modules and their associated assessment strategies. The Chemistry curriculum was stated to be in alignment with the Subject benchmark statement for Chemistry and this has been confirmed by external examiners. The audit team noted that external examiners had indicated the need to provide a clear distinction between BSc (Hons) and MChem level learning outcomes. The team discussed this matter with members of the Division who drew attention to the higher level and greater credit weighted of MChem projects, and the associated additional skills required.
208 In general, external examiners seemed to the audit team to have been complimentary about the provision, referring to 'first-rate pathways' in one case and 'comparable to those of a front-line, research-led university' in another. With respect to the programmes/pathways which include Pharmaceutical Science and Forensic and Analytical Science, these had been designed with input from practitioners and the Pharmaceutical Science programmes/pathways had made reference to the Subject benchmark statement for Pharmacy. The Division is seeking accreditation for its Forensic Science modules from the Forensic Science Society. The aims and learning outcomes of the various programmes are set out in a range of informative Student Handbooks.
209 The breadth of the portfolio, when considered against the number of teaching staff has given rise to comments. Although an external examiner had commented favourably on this matter, the internal subject review of June 2003 had expressed concerns. The audit team was told on this matter that the programmes and pathways, including those with Forensic Science in their titles, had a large Analytical Chemistry component and should not be seen as Forensic Science degrees. The Division had found it more difficult to secure Forensic Science placements than Analytical Science placements, although recent graduates, albeit from a small cohort, had found suitable employment. The Division told the team that it kept its diet of modules under review annually to ensure the viability of individual modules.
210 The Division has worked hard to give effect to the University's commitment to widening participation. The DSED noted that 'progression statistics vary from year to year and are discussed in Annual Evaluation Reports'. The general pattern, however, is of high retention in the final year of most pathways, but very variable retention in the first year. The Division has accordingly taken steps to improve retention. In response to poor progression in Pharmaceutical Science, curriculum changes were introduced which raised year one achievement rates. The audit team noted that the Chemical Sciences Student Counsellor had used data and information derived from ASIS to identify students who might be 'at risk' in order to provide support to them. The Counsellor had also followed up individual students who had withdrawn to ascertain their reasons for leaving. The team viewed this work to support retention as a feature of good practice. Typically, all students who undertake the one year MSc programme complete it successfully.
211 Programmes and pathways are reviewed through annual evaluation reports. These are completed according to the University's requirements. The audit team consulted a sample of annual evaluation reports for the Division's pathways and programmes for 2002-03 and 2003-04. In all cases these had been carefully and conscientiously completed and had provided opportunities for self-reflection.
212 In June 2003, the Division had participated in one of the first of the University's internal subject reviews. To support the review the Division had produced a self-evaluation covering all its provision from HND to PhD, detailing the associated teaching and learning and assessment strategies, the student learning experience, the Division's research, accommodation and facilities, and external activities. The membership of the panel which had conducted the review had included an academic from another university, an industrialist, and a research student, and the review event had involved a tour of the facilities used by the Department and meetings with students and the teaching team. The review panel had produced a report covering a number of matters to which the Division responded. The audit team was told that the Division had gained from its participation in the review and that staff had particularly valued the opportunity it had provided to reflect on the curricula in their entirety. Members of staff told the team that the outcomes of the review had included the introduction of away days for staff discussions and the fuller integration of part-time staff into the teaching team.
213 Sets of recent reports from external examiners were provided to support the DAT. These showed that the external examiners considered that the academic standards of the programmes were high and that they were confident that any comments they might offer would be thoroughly followed up. The Division uses a standard two-part form to record its responses to external examiners which requires it to offer comprehensive comments on any matters raised by the examiners and identifies who will take action and by what date ('Form A'). The second part of the standard form is used to record the action taken ('Form B'). Both forms must be countersigned by the external examiner concerned. The effective use of these standard forms by the Division appeared to the team to constitute a feature of good practice.
214 The assessment strategy adopted by the Division is determined by that recently introduced by the University. It comprises an end-of-year examination combined with a variety of other forms of assessment during the year, which include multiple choice question tests, laboratory practical reports, oral and poster presentations and dissertations, based on both projects and literature surveys. The contribution of the end-of-year examinations increases as students progress through the programme. The Division makes full use of tutor reassessment and the audit team was able to confirm that the division uses formative assessment when working with first-year students and was told that it is considering its introduction at higher levels. The audit team regarded the variety of approaches to assessment adopted by the Division as suitable and the manner in which assessments are conducted appeared to the team to be consistent with the advice of the Code of practice.
215 A substantial sample of assessed student work which had been moderated by external examiners was provided for the audit team, covering a number of modules at different levels, and including M-level project work. Its scrutiny of the marked work enabled the team to confirm the view of the external examiners that in each case the standard of the work was of an appropriate level, as was the marking. The team also noted, however, that the marking of some projects did not indicate evidence of moderation with sufficient clarity. While the University guidelines for moderation indicate that only 15 per cent of each batch of student work submitted for summative assessment needs to be moderated, the team took the view that major pieces of work should be both moderated and be seen to be moderated: action to ensure this would now be desirable.
216 Students who met the audit team spoke appreciatively of the usefulness of the student handbooks they had received both as sources of information and in helping them to understand what was expected of them. The team examined the handbooks for the MChem/BSc Chemistry programmes, and MSc/BSc Forensic and Analytical Science programmes and noted the comprehensive information they provided. Topics covered included the programme's structure, supervised work experience, grade descriptors, personal development planning, plagiarism, how to make one's voice heard, safety, student welfare, study methods and examination technique. The handbooks appeared to the team to be an excellent resource for students.
217 Students told the audit team that they were generally satisfied with the learning resources available to them and particularly praised the library and ICT provision available. They also spoke positively about the range of laboratory equipment to which they had access although it seemed to them that some could not be considered to be 'state-of-the-art'. Students have access to the services of the Applied Sciences Resource Centre which provides photocopying, binding and related services and noted that a recent survey of learning resource facilities showed that students rated them highly. Members of the teaching staff in the Division operate an open-door policy and students again told the team of their appreciation for this approach and for the good level of support they received from staff during their supervised work experience.
218 The minutes of recent SSLCs were included in the information provided by the Division to support the DAT. These showed that students raised a wide variety of matters in the meetings ranging from the temperature of lecture rooms to student perceptions of particular modules. The Division has previously convened an SSLC for each year of each programme. Following the introduction of student panels it considers that staff student meetings are likely to assume a more coherent structure, although the papers of the SSLCs showed that action had resulted from the discussions; for example a more even spread of student workload between the two semesters had been introduced following discussion and SSLCs. In the course of the DAT the team also met a research student who was able to confirm support from a supervisory team based in the Division and the availability of university-level courses to prepare research students to act as laboratory demonstrators.
219 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the Division had adopted a student-centred approach to teaching and supporting learning and that it was assisting its students to achieve high standards. Their efforts are well-regarded by their student body. On the basis of the written evidence it examined and its meetings with staff and students, the team was satisfied that the quality of the learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to the award titles listed in paragraph 205, above.
Music
220 The scope of the DAT comprised programmes/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. At the time of the audit a new programme/pathway leading to the award of a BMus (Hons) Creative Music Technology had recently commenced: this was not included in the scope of the audit. New pathways in Music Technology and Popular Music, Music Technology and Digital Media & Music and Journalism are planned.
221 The Division of Music which is responsible for the provision listed above is located in the Department of Music and Drama which itself operates within the School of Music and Humanities. Music provision is well established at the University where degree level studies have been offered for more than 30 years. The provision is distinguished by its emphasis on contemporary music, composition and performance. The Division has strong links with the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival which has an established international reputation. Music Technology provision is delivered by both the Division of Music and School of Computing and Engineering. The DSED provided to support the DAT took the form of a self evaluation prepared by the Division to support a recent internal subject review, together with a supplementary update.
222 For each of the undergraduate pathways in Music there is a programme specification, copies of which were provided to support the DAT. The manner in which each pathway engages with the Subject benchmark statement for Music varies according to the focus of the pathway but the audit team was satisfied that the Subject benchmark statement had informed the recent development of each. For example, the team was told that the Division had introduced a compulsory year three module, 'Musicology 3', for the BMus (Hons) and BA (Hons) 'Music with' pathways, in order to improve their alignment with the Music benchmark statement. The structure of the programme specifications show that the Division has also given consideration to the advice offered by the FHEQ.
223 Progression and completion data are used to analyse student achievement, and data in the ASIS system is used for this purpose by admissions tutors and tutors to first-year students. At the School level, there is evidence to show that non-completion and non-progression trends are monitored and addressed. The audit team was interested to learn that an analysis of non-completion rates in 2003-04 among first-year students on the BMus (Hons) and the BA (Hons) Music Technology had informed the School's plan to address retention matters. In concrete terms the data derived from ASIS had enabled the Division to identify a number of areas where completion and retention were high, and it had then worked with those areas to establish their particular 'success factors' which had subsequently been more widely shared (see above, paragraph 110).
224 The Division completes annual pathway and programme evaluations for consideration by the School. The samples of such evaluations provided to support the DAT showed that they were detailed and comprehensive documents enabling local operating conditions to be tracked and trends identified. A regular component of annual evaluation has been student module evaluation: the audit team noted from the reports it was able to consult that return rates for such evaluations appeared to have been comparatively low. From the evidence of the annual evaluations, and the internal subject review which had taken place in 2004, the team was confident that both internal monitoring and review were working effectively in the Division and the School.
225 The Division has appointed three external examiners, in musicology, composition and music technology. In addition to the external examiners, the Division employs external performance assessors for practical examinations. Such external performance assessors write reports for the pathway assessment board and provide detailed feedback to students. The audit team was able to review a series of reports from external examiners and noted evidence that their comments and advice appeared to have been dealt with in a serious and timely fashion. Comments by external examiners and the responses made to them by the Division are routinely reported in the annual evaluation report for the following session. The team was able to confirm from the reports it saw that the external examiners have confidence in the academic and performance standards of the University's Music awards and their more general support for the work of the Division.
226 The audit team had access to samples of assessed work produced by students which had been moderated by the external examiners. These showed that the academic and performance standards achieved by students meet those set out in the programme specifications. The team noted the work undertaken by the Division to incorporate the key principles of the University's new assessment strategy in the assessment arrangements for pathways and modules in music and that this had been done in a critical and reflective fashion. From the sample of assessed work it saw, the team was able to confirm that, in general (and with the exceptions noted below), music staff commented fully on assessed work and that they used specially designed summary sheets to identify common problems efficiently.
227 The audit team did, however, note some disparity between the character of the feedback on assessed work provided to students following the BMus/BA (Hons) 'Music with' pathways and that provided for the Music Technology pathway. In general, staff teaching on the BMus/BA (Hons) 'Music with' pathways appeared to provide students with detailed feedback on assessed work. In the case of the Music Technology pathway, however, the sample of assessed work seen by the team would suggest that the relevant staff were less forthcoming in providing feedback to the students; in some cases marking appeared to the team to be confined to ticks or crosses, with numerical marks, and there were no qualitative comments or advice on how to improve performance. In several instances the team was surprised to find comments on marked work which were wholly negative. Such comments suggested to the team that there was scope for the University to work with the Division to enhance the formative character of comments on assessed work, and to ensure that the Division's approach to assessment is consistent with that required by the University's new strategy. There is clear evidence, however, that assessments are thoroughly moderated and the process of moderation is fully documented.
228 For each pathway, the Division provides students with a handbook which gives information on how the subject area is administered and on assessment, attendance requirements (and how compliance with them is monitored), academic writing and University policies. In addition, the Division provides handbooks on specific topics such as performance and composition. Individual handbooks on the sample provided for the audit team were clearly set out and written, and comprehensive in their coverage. In addition to pathway handbooks, students are provided with guidance notes for individual modules or particular matters. Other documents provided by the Division provide guidance for students on study skills and views of ICT.
229 In the course of the DAT the audit team explored the learning resources and support available to students in Music. With respect to learning resources, the Division has its own Music Library, which is serviced by specialist librarians and provides students and staff with access to books, journals, scores, sheet music, LPs and CDs. In addition to the suites of software generally available to students across the University, students in the Division have access to specialist music notation software, as well as more specialist equipment and software in studios. There were critical comments in the SWS and in the papers of the music SSLC about student access to studios and their use of the notation software, but students who met the audit team in the DAT did not support these observations.
230 The internal subject review of Music in 2004 highlighted problems with the soundproofing in some rooms, and the need for more rooms in which ensemble players could practice, although there are sufficient practice rooms for solo players. The Division has the use of a good concert hall and a recital hall. Staff and students recognised that the juxtaposition of students majoring in Popular Music with other music students has the potential to cause difficulties if soundproofing is not improved. The way in which these matters had been raised in the internal subject review testifies well to the comprehensiveness and robustness of the review process.
231 At the time of the audit a substantial number of Music modules were being supported through the VLE. Students told the audit team that support for the VLE varied between members of staff but they were in no doubt that it constituted a valuable learning resource. Provision posted on the VLE is monitored through the annual evaluation process for each pathway.
232 In the course of the DAT the audit team learned of a continuing difficulty which has the capacity to impair the learning experience of Music Technology students. This arises from the way in which the delivery of Music Technology pathways and programmes is shared between the Division and the School of Computing and Engineering and has left Music Technology students with the impression that they 'belong' in neither location (see also above). The University has acknowledged the importance of addressing this matter and has established an 'Institute of Music Technology' to act as a unifying umbrella. Although students indicated that they had yet to feel the benefit of this development the team encourages the University to continue with this initiative.
233 The Division gathers feedback from its students on their learning experiences through module questionnaires, informal conversations between students and staff and through SSLCs (now redesignated as student panels). Examples of the papers of the former SSLCs which were provided for the information of the audit team showed a wide range of agenda items including the needs of Music Technology students (see above) and such matters as the introduction of the compulsory Musicology 3 module and other matters noted in this report. The papers of the SSLCs allowed the team to confirm that items arising from discussions had subsequently been followed up.
234 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the quality of learning opportunities in Music is suitable for programmes of studies leading to the named awards listed in paragraph 220, above.
Psychology
235 The scope of the DAT comprised programmes/pathways leading to the following awards: BSc (Hons) Psychology; BSc (Hons) Psychology and Criminology; BSc (Hons) Psychology with Counselling; BSc (Hons) Social Psychology. The Division of Psychology is part of the Department of Behavioural Sciences and is located in the School of Human and Health Sciences. The Division currently offers no taught postgraduate provision but is responsible for the supervision of a number of research postgraduates. Three of the undergraduate awards - Psychology, Psychology with Criminology, and Psychology with Counselling - have been accredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS) as providing the graduate basis for registration by the Society.
236 The Psychology Division has yet to participate in an internal subject review; consequently, the DSED provided to support the DAT consisted of a specially written document describing and evaluating the Division's teaching provision. In addition to the DSED, the Division also provided by the documents to support the DAT which included programme specifications, handbooks, student progression data, external examiners' reports and annual evaluation reports. The audit team considered that taken together these documents provided a clear and self-critical evaluation of the University's provision in psychology.
237 The audit team found the programme specifications for the undergraduate programmes to be full and clear. They showed evidence of excellent mapping between the curriculum and the learning outcomes and the Subject benchmark statement for psychology and linked well to the teaching and learning strategies and the University's new assessment strategy. Both the programme specifications and the DSED showed a responsive awareness on the part of the Division and its staff to the guidance offered by the FHEQ.
238 The ASIS database provides the Division with information about student registration, progression and completion. The audit team was provided with a detailed set of progression and completion statistics for 2003-04 for the three programmes/pathways running then, broken down by year of study. Data of this kind is included and analysed further in the annual evaluation reports produced for each of the pathways (see below) which are subsequently discussed at School level. Staff confirmed to the team that they found the data on ASIS to be accurate and that it was widely used, particularly by admissions tutors and pathway leaders. Other staff mainly use it through reports raised by administrative colleagues, although direct use is being encouraged by the wide availability of training courses.
239 The Psychology programmes/pathways are not due to undergo a periodic review until 2007. But there is clear evidence that each pathway/programme is subject to thorough monitoring via annual evaluation. This is centred on the annual evaluation report which is reviewed in detail at School level. The audit team saw several examples of such annual evaluation reports and noted particularly the fullness of the documentation and the evidence it provided that changes were being made and monitored. One particularly good example of this documentation was the annual checklist of recommendations made by external examiners and the actions which followed, which are signed off by the external examiners before inclusion in the annual evaluation report. The latter also include several years of external examiners' reports enabling their recommendations to be tracked over time. The external examiners' reports seen by the audit team were full and provided good evidence that externals were moderating academic standards effectively. There were occasional criticisms, for example, of the absence of module means and standard deviations making judgements on inter-module parity difficult but, in general, the external examiners' reports the team saw were strongly supportive of the programmes/pathways and the Division.
240 As noted earlier, at the time of the audit the University had recently changed from semesters to year-long, 20-credit modules, and had introduced a new assessment strategy. The audit team was able to confirm that the psychology programmes and pathways had been amended to fit this new model. The most important of the changes made had involved the introduction of substantial amounts of formative assessments. These have been carefully linked to subsequent summative assessments in order to enhance students' understanding and motivation. In the team's view the manner in which this had been done by the Division represented a feature of good practice. In addition to introducing formative assessments across all year one provision, the Division has now also introduced formative assessment into all level 2 and 3 modules. Students who met the team confirmed that these formative assessments had been welcomed and seemed effective.
241 In line with the University's new assessment strategy, tutor re-assessment has been introduced by the Division. The students who met the audit team had yet to experience the process of tutor re-assessment; they viewed it, however, as a potentially valuable way of improving their performance without the need to resit examinations.
242 The Division's formal assessment procedures comply with the University's procedures. Specifically, a sample of student work is sent to external examiners who moderate the marks and agree them with the module leader. The PAB cannot change these agreed marks. When modules are shared across different pathways, all PABs get the agreed marks and the audit team was told that module leaders would normally attend all the boards concerned. The PABs then determine the students' final degree classifications. The audit team was told that the overriding factor in this is the weighted average of second and third year work, but the PABs will discuss raising cases within about 2 per cent of the class borders on the basis of other factors, including extenuating circumstances, final-year project performance, and trajectory and progression. A general outline of this process is available to students in their various handbooks and the team was told that personal tutors would also discuss classification procedures with their students.
243 As noted elsewhere in this report, the assessment procedures outlined above appeared to the audit team to be broadly consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice with the possible exception of the advice offered on consistency, viz that 'institutions should have effective procedures...for the consistent implementation of rigorous assessment practices which ensure that the academic/professional standard for each award and award element is set and maintained at the appropriate level and that student performance is properly judged against this'. The team considered that in the absence of statistical information on means and standard deviations, and formal definitions of what would constitute 'borderline' cases, or the other factors that PABs could take into account in determining a degree classification, it would be difficult to ensure consistency from year to year and across PABs. This would be a particular problem for modules that contributed to more than one pathway. As noted in paragraph 42, the University is advised to define 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. It might also wish to consider the advisability of asking UTLC to monitor how schools and award boards use such discretion.
244 The audit team considered a wide range of undergraduate work from all levels contributing to the degrees under review. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessments and the standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications and the subject benchmark statement. In all cases, the standards of achievement were appropriate to the levels of award obtained.
245 Information is provided for students in module, pathway and University handbooks which are clear and comprehensive. There is also a 'School Quality Handbook'. The students who met the audit team also reported finding the internet-based information very useful. They considered the information with which they had been provided was full and accurate. Induction procedures for both undergraduates and research postgraduates were said by students to be thorough and helpful at both University and school level. Undergraduates used ASIS to obtain their examination marks and technical help was available for accessing this when necessary.
246 It was clear to the audit team from discussions with both undergraduates and research postgraduate students that they considered the learning resources available to them to be generally good. Undergraduate students appreciated their easy access to library material, both on and off campus and, particularly, the comprehensive use of the University's VLE by staff. They also reported that they had access to sufficient specialist laboratories and software and benefited from a helpful interaction with research postgraduates for undertaking level 3 research projects. The undergraduate students again indicated that the Division's personal tutorial system had developed substantially over the last few years and that formal and informal contact arrangements between students and staff were now very good. In addition to informal contact, either directly or by email, students benefit from scheduled meetings with tutors in line with the University's expectations. An AST is based in the School and the work being undertaken was appreciated by the students and seemed to the team to constitute a useful source of additional help.
247 The audit team found the support given to research postgraduate students outstanding. Each of the research postgraduates who met the team was supported by a number of discipline-based supervisors and had access to a School-based postgraduate tutor for more generic advice and guidance. All research students who taught took the University's approved training (see above, paragraph 123) and were treated within the Division as junior members of staff, with access to staff developmental courses and programmes offered through the Psychology Learning and Teaching Support Network. The team considered that the Division was fully supporting its postgraduate research students in the effective development of generic skills over their three years of study, and that it was providing them with support for attending and presenting at national and international conferences.
248 There are three main routes through which the Division seeks feedback from students on their learning experiences. Paper-based questionnaires are used to seek feedback at the module level and there are end-of-year pathway questionnaires. Questionnaire results are posted on the VLE. Feedback is also secured through pathway-based SSLCs, which have now been replaced by student panels, chaired by the pathway leaders. The minutes of the former SSLCs indicated that attendance by students had sometimes been patchy, although the audit team were told that this problem was being addressed by increasing the student numbers on the panels. The team saw good evidence of useful responses to student input, and it was clear both from the minutes of the SSLCs/student panels, and from discussions with students, that changes had occurred as a result of matters raised at SSLC/student panel meetings. Examples included the development of the use of the VLE and changes to laboratory practicals. Student representatives who met the team confirmed they had received some training from the Students' Union.
249 Overall, the audit team was able to confirm that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students is suitable for the programmes/pathways leading to the award titles in Psychology listed in paragraph 235 above, and that the quality of learning opportunities for research postgraduates is good.
Thematic enquiries
250 The audit did not include any thematic enquiries.
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
251 The University makes available information centrally to prospective and existing students; the latter also have access to information to guide their studies at the school, pathway and module level. Of the centrally provided documents, one of the most important is the Raspberry Book which provides information on University policies relating, inter alia, to assessment; plagiarism; disciplinary procedures; complaints; use of facilities; attendance and professional behaviour. Students who met the audit team were able to confirm that the Raspberry Book had been made available to them and that they consulted it when necessary.
252 In preparing to write the SWS the Students' Union had sought information from continuing students on information provided when they were applicants and on arrival, and the SWS summarised many of the responses. In general, it appeared to be the case that most students had been satisfied with the information they had received prior to their arrival. In some cases, however, applicants through clearing reported that they had received no advance information.
253 Students may be provided with handbooks by schools' departments, divisions and subject teams. The team saw examples of such handbooks in the DATs and noted that the information they contained was generally comprehensive, clear and relevant. Handbooks for students preparing for placements appeared to the team to be particularly clear. Handbooks for postgraduate research students have recently been revised to good effect. Not all the handbooks the team saw provided information on assessment criteria, although students are provided with the Raspberry Book. The team encourages the University to consider the merits of providing guidance to schools and subject teams on what information on assessment criteria should be included in student handbooks.
254 The audit team enquired into the University's arrangements for ensuring the accuracy of prospectuses and other information published for applicants and students. As at the time of the 2001 report, editorial control of the prospectuses, for example, rests with the University's Head of Publicity and Media Relations with the original material being provided by pathway leaders, departments and schools. In general, students with whom the team discussed the information provided through the University's various prospectuses considered that the information they contained was helpful and accurate. Similarly, students were broadly satisfied with the information they received from the University and the schools on commencing their studies.
255 As the University has developed its VLE it has increasingly used this means to provide information to students. Many of those who met the audit team appreciated the information provided for them through the VLE and the element of flexibility it provided for students whose circumstances made it difficult to attend all teaching sessions. There were some comments in the SWS, however, which indicated that the standards and consistency of the material placed on the VLE might benefit from attention. The team was able to confirm the substance of this observation when it browsed the VLE in the course of the audit visit. As the University considers the desirability of developing its quality assurance arrangements for e-learning the team encourages it to consider what quality control arrangements might be suitable for materials placed by staff on its VLE. Overall, however, the team was able to confirm that students regard the VLE as a valuable adjunct to their studies.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
256 The SED provided no information on the University's approach to meeting the requirements of HEFCE's document, 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance for the publication of TQI or on the progress it had made towards providing TQI to the national site. The audit team therefore took particular care to inquire into this matter in the course of the briefing and audit visits, and requested specific information from the University. The team also requested a demonstration of the tools and techniques the University had developed to support the provision of TQI to the national site.
257 In view of the comments in the 2001 report and subsequent comments by HEFCE on the accuracy of the University's data, it has invested considerable time and effort to improve the accuracy of the information available to it and to external stakeholders. As noted elsewhere, however, the University has recognised that it needs to continue to improve the accuracy with which it records student enrolment data and the timeliness with which information on student withdrawals is posted to ASIS.
258 Members of the University told the audit team that a TQI Coordinator had been appointed, who was based in the Registry, and that the University was confident that it would be capable of uploading all requested TQI to the national website by January 2005. The team was also told that the provision of quantitative data was progressing well but that further work needed to be undertaken to ensure that accurate qualitative information (which was often stored locally under the University's arrangements) could be provided to the national site. In this connection an interim arrangement had been adopted, whereby heads of departments would provide summaries of reports by external examiners, for approval by the latter, which would then be posted to the national website. The University stressed to the team that this was an interim measure and that it was exploring alternatives, whereby the external examiners would write their own summaries. Until this more satisfactory solution can be introduced, the team encourages the University to find ways of ensuring that the procedures it has adopted for this interim mode of preparing summaries of external examiners reports are made clear. Overall, the University is confident that it will be able to meet all the requirements of HEFCE for TQI by the beginning of 2005 and the team had no reason to disagree with this assessment.
ISBN 1 84482 249 4
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube