University of Brighton
Institutional Audit

MAY 2004

RG 083 10/04

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) visited the University of Brighton (the University, or Brighton) from 16 to 21 May 2004 to carry out an institutional audit. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the opportunities available to students and on the academic standards of the awards offered by the University.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff throughout the University, to current students, and read a wide range of documents relating to the way the University manages the academic aspects of its provision.

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

Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their academic award. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.

In institutional audit, both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed.

Outcome of the audit

As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that:

broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards.

Features of good practice

The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice in the context of the University:

the quality management and assurance arrangements put in place to support the Brighton and Sussex Medical School;
the University's approach to staff development for newly-appointed staff, its staff development workshops and the work of the Centre for Learning and Teaching more generally;
the provision of 'staffcentral' as a comprehensive electronic information base for staff; the care with which documentation has been developed to support the work of staff and students, including student handbooks; and the exemplary Partner College Staff Handbook;
the work undertaken with partner institutions to develop assessment arrangements by the Schools of Computing, Mathematical and Information Sciences, and Engineering;
the contributions to the University's quality and academic standards management arrangements of the Assistant Faculty Officers, their constructive interactions with each other, and their dialogues with the Registry;
the design and operation of the University's Annual Academic Health process, including the careful arrangements to ensure attention to the annual monitoring of provision with partner colleges, and the use made by the University and its partners of the Enhancement Day component of the process;
the University's provision for the annual review at institutional level of memoranda of cooperation with partner institutions; and
the introduction by site libraries of special measures to meet the particular needs of part-time students, including a postal loan service.

Recommendations for action

The audit team advises the University to:

articulate how it monitors and evaluates the comparability of academic standards across the breadth of its provision;
review the conduct of its procedures for the validation of new programmes of study in partner colleges, as a matter of priority; and take further its existing arrangements for the support and academic development of its partner colleges; and
develop further its work in progress on assessment policy and practice and proceed with its current initiatives in establishing, where this is appropriate, greater consistency in its quality management arrangements with respect to internal moderation.

It would also be desirable for the University to:

consider at an institutional level the findings and strategic implications of all reports from professional, statutory and regulatory bodies; and
review its present regulations for the composition of its faculty and institutional validation panels.

Engineering; computing science; architecture; and European languages

To arrive at these conclusions the audit team spoke to staff and students, and was given information about the University as a whole. The team also looked in detail at programmes in the above areas. The team came to the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, published by the Agency. Again, in each case, the quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for a programme of study leading to the relevant awards.

National reference points

To provide further evidence to support its findings the audit team also investigated the use made by the University of the Academic Infrastructure which the Agency has developed on behalf of the whole of UK higher education. The Academic Infrastructure is a set of nationally agreed reference points which help to define both good practice and academic standards. The findings of the audit suggest that the University's approach to the Academic Infrastructure is generally sound.

From 2005, the institutional audit process will include a check on the reliability of the information set published by institutions in the format recommended in the Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) document 02/15, Information on quality and standards in higher education, as updated in HEFCE's document 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance. At the time of the audit, the University was taking steps to fulfil its responsibilities in this respect.

>> Main report

>> Findings

ISBN 1 84482 185 4

University of Brighton Institutional Audit